Skip to main content

Full text of "Colony And Mother City In Ancient Greece"

See other formats 


COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 
IN ANCIENT GREECE 







A. 3. GRAHAM 



The Greek colonies 

and their 

,not only intrinsic 

of colonising activity but of the 

of Greek colonies. The 
colony and its mother city had a 
closer tie of relationship than 
between Greek in general,, yet as 

a rule the colony a city 

state, thus providing for a 

variety of of association. Dr J 

Graham stee ekin?^ th . 

of ths 8th tc tSie ' : f'h eri,a;n/ B.C 

The first past -o/the book is to 

a description of Greek and 

tices regarding the actual founding of a 
colony, about which there appear to 
have been general fixed principles. He 
then goes on to consider the subsequent 
relations between the cchi ' iad its 
mother city. Usif-f ' i- /* In e i? sv/n from 
a number o r l rdi'M.* 1 Ihasos* 
Miletus, C :? 1 1 ; : ., n J f ' i ;i ! author 
discusses the genera! batU M which 
links were formed between city and 
colony, involving such questions as 
mutual citizenship and religious con- 
nections. He also considers the varia- 
tions found In the relationships caused 
by such factors as distance and the power 
and ambitions of the mother city. 

As a synthesis which presents and 
discusses material widely spread in place 
and time, much of It previously accessible 
only to specialists, this book should 
become both the standard general treat- 
ment of the subject and the basis for 
future studies of this aspect of Greek 
colonization. 




$6.75 




AUGI6 1976 

fB3 .1577 
NOV2 1978 



938 G73c 65-11308 

Graham . 

Colony and Ltothex City in 
ancient Greece 




COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 
IN ANCIENT GREECE 



Author and Publishers are 
indebted to the trustees 

of 

THE TOUT FUND 
and 

THE WARD BEQUEST 

for contributions towards 
the cost of publication 



COLONY 

AND MOTHER CITY 
IN ANCIENT GREECE 

by 

A. J. GRAHAM 



BARNES & NOBLE, INC. NEW YORK 
Publishers Booksellers Founded 1873 



1964 A. J. GRAHAM 

All rights reserved 

MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY PRESS 
MANCHESTER 13, ENGLAND 

First published 
in the United States 

1964 

BARNES & NOBLE, INC. 
105 Fifth Avenue, New York 3 



Printed in Great Britain 



TO 

SIR FRANK ADCOCK 

TEACHER AND FRIEND 




CONTENTS 



page 

Preface ix 

Abbreviations xi 

Select Bibliography xiii 

Introduction xvii 

I Prolegomena j 

Principles of arrangement i 

Some generalizations and distinctions 4 

The character of the evidence 8 



PART I 
THE ACT OF FOUNDATION 

II Traditional practices 25 

III The role of the oikist 29 

IV Foundation decrees 40 

PART II 
SUBSEQUENT RELATIONS 

V Thasos and the effect of distance 7 1 

VI Miletus and the question of mutual citizenship 98 

VII Corinth and the colonial empire 118 

The Corinthian colonial empire 1 1 8 

Corinth's relations with Syracuse and Corcyra 1412 

Corcyra and her colonies 149 

VIII Argos, Cnossus, Tylissus, and religious relations 154 

IX Athens and late imperial colonies 166 

Cleruchies and doubtful cases 167 

Other imperial colonies 192 

X Conclusion 211 



vu 



viii CONTENTS 

APPENDICES 

I Corinth's western aims in the eighth century 218 

II Translations of foundation decrees 224 

III The form of the Naupactus foundation decree 230 

IV Corinth and Megara 233 
V The Argive decree about Cnossus and Tylissus 235 

VI The citizens of Amphipolis 245 

Index 249 



PREFACE 

SINGE I give an account of previous work on my subject in 
the Introduction, and an explanation of the way in which 
the material is set out in Chapter I, I confine myself here to the 
basic functions of a preface, apology and acknowledgment. 

The transliteration of Greek names presents a problem beyond 
satisfactory solution. Andrewes has discussed it sensibly in the 
preface to The Greek Tyrants. Since complete consistency is un- 
attainable some form of compromise is inevitable, and I have 
preferred to use the 'traditional Latinized form 3 , 1 though with- 
out slavishly latinizing rare or obscure Greek names and words. 
In this, as also in translating most of the Greek passages cited, I 
have had in mind those who are interested in Greek history but 
do not know Greek. 

Any student of Greek history must be conscious of a great 
debt to past workers in the same field, and especially one who 
attempts a synthesis ranging over the whole Greek world and 
several centuries of Greek history. His widely dispersed material 
would hardly be manageable if it had not been evaluated in 
detail by others before him. But the quantity of modern 
literature more or less relevant to this material makes it almost 
impossible to escape the charge of failing to take cognizance of 
all of it. I can only hope that nothing of crucial importance has 
been missed and all debts have been acknowledged. 

If failings of this and other kinds are less numerous than they 
might have been that is due to the help that I have received 
from many quarters. Much of this was given when I was pre- 
paring an earlier and different form of this work as a Ph.D. 
thesis; for that I hope a general acknowledgment will be con- 
sidered sufficient here. In a form much nearer its present shape 
this essay was awarded the Hare Prize of the University of 
Cambridge. To the examiners for that prize, Professor V. L. 
Ehrenberg and Mr. F. H. Sandbach, as also to Dr. A. H. 

1 Hammond, History of Greece, p. vii. 

ix 



X PREFACE 

McDonald, I am indebted for many valuable criticisms. I also 
owe a very special debt of gratitude to my colleagues Mr. V. R. 
d'A. Desborough and Mr. C. A. Rodewald, to whose care in 
reading my MS. and thoughtful suggestions almost every page 
bears witness. Finally, I gladly express my thanks to Sir Frank 
Adcock, who originally suggested the subject to me, guided my 
early investigations, and helped and encouraged me through- 
out. It would be churlish not to add that I alone am responsible 
for the faults that remain. 

A.J.G. 

Manchester 



ABBREVIATIONS 



In citing periodicals I employ the abbreviations commonly found in modern 
learned literature, or, occasionally, a longer self-explanatory form. The 
following books are cited by the abbreviation indicated: 

ATL: The Athenian Tribute Lists, by B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, M. F. 

McGregor, Princeton N.J. 1939-50. 
Beloch: Griechische Geschichte, by Karl Julius Beloch, and edition, Strasburg 

1912-17. 
Bengtson GG Z : Griechische Geschichte, by H. Bengtson, 2nd edition, Munich 

1960. 

Berard: La colonisation grecque de I'ltalie meridionale et de la Sidle dans I* anti- 
quit^ by J. Berard, 2nd edition, Paris 1957. 
Bilabel: Die ionische Kolonisation, by F. Bilabel, Philologus Supplementband 

XIV, Leipzig 1920. 
BMC: Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, edited by R. S. Poole, 

B. V. Head, G. Hill and others, London 1873-. 
Busolt: Griechische Geschichte bis zur Schlacht bei Chaeroneia, by G. Busolt, 2nd 

edition, Gotha 1893-1904. 
Busolt/Swoboda: Griechische Staatskunde II, by G. Busolt and H. Swoboda, 

Munich 1926. 
CAH: The Cambridge Ancient History, edited by J. B. Bury, S. A. Cook, F. E. 

Adcock and others, Cambridge 1929-39. 
Ditt.OG/: Orientis Graeci Inscriptions Selectae, edited by W. Dittenberger, 

Leipzig 1903-05. 

Dunbabin: The Western Greeks, by T. J. Dunbabin, Oxford 1948. 
FGH: Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, by F. Jacoby, Berlin 1923-9, 

Leiden 1940-. 

FHG: Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, by K. Mueller, Paris 1841-72. 
Gomme: A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, by A. W. Gomme, Oxford 

1945-56. 

Head, /fjV 2 : Historia Numorum, by B. V. Head, 2nd edition, Oxford 1911. 
Hicks and Hill: A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions, by E. L. Hicks and 

G. F. Hill, new and revised edition, Oxford 1901. 
Hill, Sources 2 : Sources for Greek History between the Persian and Peloponnesian 

Wars, collected and arranged by G. F. Hill, 2nd edition by R. Meiggs 

and A. Andrewes, Oxford 1951. 
1C: Inscriptions Creticae opera et consilio F. Halbherr collectae . . . curavit M, 

Guarducci, Rome 1935-50. 
IG: Inscriptions Graecae, Berlin 1873-. 



xii ABBREVIATIONS 

Inschr. von Olympia: Die Inschriften von Qlympia, edited by W. Dittenberger and 

K. Purgold, Berlin 1896. 
Liddell and Scott: A Greek-English Lexicon, by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, 

revised and augmented edition by H. S.Jones, Oxford 1925-40. 
Milet 1.3: Das Delphinion in Milet, by A. Rehm and G. Kawerau, Berlin 1914. 
OCD: The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by M. Gary and others, Oxford 

1949- 
PA: Prosopographica Attica, by J. Kirchner, Berlin 1901-2. 

Pouilloux: Recherches sur rhistoire et les mites de Thasos I, by J. Pouilloux, Paris 

'954- 
RE: Paulys Realencydopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, edited by G. 

Wissowa and others, Stuttgart 1904-. 

SEG: Supplementum Epigrapkicum Gmecum, Lugduni Batavorum 1923-. 
SGDI: Sammlung der griechischen Dialektinschriften, edited by H. Gollitz, F. 

Bechtel and others, Gottingen 1884-1915. 
Syll*'. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum^ by W. Dittenberger, 3rd edition, 

Leipzig 1915-24 
Tod: A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, by M. N. Tod, two volumes, 

vol. I, and edition, Oxford 1946, vol. II, Oxford 1948. 



SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 



The aim of this bibliography is no more than to provide full descriptions of 
works cited in the text, excluding periodicals, Festschriften, ancient authors, 
and the works listed above under Abbreviations. 

ANDREWES, A., The Greek Tyrants, London 1956. 

AURIGEMMA, S., // R, Museo di Spina, Ferrara 1935. 

BARRON, W., A History of the Colonization of the Free States of Antiquity, applied to 

the present contest between Great Britain and her American Colonies, London 1 777. 
BEAN, G. E. AND FRASER, P. M., The Rhodian Peraea and Islands, Oxford 1954. 
BENGTSON, H., Grosser Historische Weltatlas I, Vorgeschichte und Altertum, 

Bayerische Schulbuch Verlag, Munich 1953. 
B&RARD, J. , U expansion et la colonisation grecques jusqu'aux guerres mldiques, Paris 

1960. 

BERVE, H,, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischen Grundlage, Munich 1926. 
BETANT, E. A., Lexicon Thucydideum, Geneva 1843-7. 
BLINKENBERG, GHR., Die Lindische Tempelchronik, Bonn 1915. 

Lindos, Fouilles d'Acropole II, Inscriptions, Berlin and Copenhagen 1941. 

BOUGAINVILLE, J. P. DE, Dissertation qui a remporte le prix de I'Academie Royale 

des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres en I'annee 1745. Quels latent les droits des 

Metropoles grecques sur leurs colonies; les devoirs des colonies envers les mttropoles; 

et les engagement reciproques des unes et des autres, Paris 1745. 
BUCK, G. D., The Greek Dialects, Chicago 1955. 

BURY, J. B., History of Greece, 3rd edition edited by R. Meiggs, London 1956. 
BUSOLT, G., Griechische Staatskunde I, Munich 1920. 
GASSOLA, F., La Ionia nel mondo miceneo, Naples 1957. 
GHAMOUX, F., Cyrene sous la monarchic des Battiades, Paris 1953. 
GLERG, M., Les Meteques Atheniennes, Paris 1893. 

Massalia, Histoire de Marseilles dans I' antiquity Marseilles 1927. 

GOLLART, P., Philippes, mile de Macedoine, depuis ses origines jusqu* a la Jin de 

I'tpoque romaine, Paris 1937. 
COMPERNOLLE, R. VAN, Etude de Chronologic et d* Historiographie Siciliotes, 

Brussels 1960. 

DEFRADAS, J., Thames de la propagandie delphique, Paris 1954. 
DESBOROUGH, V. R. D*A., Protogeometric Pottery, Oxford, 1952. 
DIESTERWEG, G., De iure coloniarum Graecarum, Berlin 1865. 
DUNBABIN, T. J., The Greeks and their Eastern Neighbours, London 1957. 
EHRENBERG, V. L., Aspects of the Ancient World, Oxford 1946. 

Sophocles and Pericles, Oxford 1954. 

Der Staat der Griechen, Leipzig 1957. 



XJV SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Finley, M. L, Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, New Brunswick 1951. 

The World of Odysseus, London 1956. 

Fouilles de Delphes publics sous la direction de T. Homolle etc., Paris 1905-. 

FRAZER, J. G., Pausanias* Description of Greece, London 1898. 

FRISCH, H., The Constitution of the Athenians, Copenhagen 1942. 

FRITZ, K. VON, Pythagorean Politics in Southern Italy, New York 1940. 

GARDINER, E. N., History and Remains of Olympia, Oxford 1925. 

GARDNER, PERCY, A History of Ancient Coinage, Oxford 1918. 

GILBERT, G., Handbuch der griechischen Staatsalterthumer, Leipzig 1881. 

GLOTZ, G., The Greek City, London 1929. 

GRUNDY, G. B., The Great Persian War, London 1901. 

GSGHNITZER, F., Abhdugige Orte im griechischen Altertum, Munich 1958. 

GUTHRIE, W. K. G., The Greeks and their Gods, London 1950. 

HALLIDAY, W. R., The Greek Questions of Plutarch, Oxford 1928. 

HAMMOND, N. G. L., A History of Greece to 322 B.C., Oxford 1959. 

HANELL, K., Megarische Studien, Lund 1934. 

HAUSSOULIER, B., Milet et le Didymeion, Paris 1901. 

HERMANN, K. F., Lehrbuch der griechischen Staatsalterthumer, Heidelberg 1855. 

HITZIG, F., Altgriechische Staatsvertrdge uber Rechtshilfe, Zurich 1907. 

HUGILL, W. H., Panhellenism in Aristophanes, Chicago 1936. 

JEFFERY, L. H., Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, Oxford 1961. 

JOHANSEN, K. FRIIS, Attic Grave Reliefs of the Classical Period, Copenhagen 195 1 . 

JONES, A. H. M., Athenian Democracy, Oxford 1957. 

KAHRSTEDT, U., Griechisches Staatsrecht, Gottingen 1922. 

KIRCHNER, J., Imagines Inscriptionum Atticarum, 2nd edition edited by G. 

Klaffenbach, Berlin 1948. 
KIRSTEN, E., Die Insel Kreta, Leipzig 1936. 
LAMPROS, S., De conditorum coloniarum graecarum indole, praemiisque et honoribus, 

Leipzig 1873. 

LARFELD, W., Griechische Epigraphik, Munich 1914. 
LASSERRE, F., Les Epodes d y Archiloque, Paris 1950. 
LERAT, L., Les Locriens de I'Ouest, Paris 1952. 
MAGAN, R. W., Herodotus, the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Books, with Introduction 

etc., London 1895. 

MAGDONALD, G., Coin Types, Glasgow 1905. 
MAGIE, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton N.J. 1950. 
MALTHUS, R., Principle of Population etc., 4th edition, London 1807. 
MARTIN, VICTOR, La vie Internationale en Grece des dUs, Paris 1940. 
MAY, J. M. F., The Coinage ofDamastion, London 1939. 
MERITT, B. D. AND WEST, A. B., The Athenian Assessment of 425 B.C., Ann 

Arbor 1934. 
MEYER, E., Forschungen zur alien Geschichte, Halle 1892. 

Theopomps Hellenika 9 Halle 1909. 

MINNS, E. H., Scythians and Greeks, Cambridge 1913. 

OIKONOMIDIS, L, ^EnQvxia AOXQOJV ygdfifjiara TO ng&rov vn6 I. Olxovoptdov 

IxdoQ&TCL nal SiahevxaB&Ta, Athens 1869. 
PAGE, D. L., Sappho and Alcaeus, Oxford 1955. 
PAPPRITZ, R., Thurii, Berlin 1891. 



SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY XV 

PARKE, H. W. AND WORMELL, D. E. W., A History of the Delphic Oracle, 

Oxford 1956. 

PAYNE, H. G. G., Necrocorinthia, Oxford 1931. 
PEEK, W., Griechiscke Versinschriften, Berlin 1955. 
PHILLIPSON, COLEMAN, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and 

Rome, London 1911. 
PORALLA, P., Prosopographie der Lakedaimonier bis auf die eit Alexanders des 

Grossen, Breslau 1913. 

RANDALL-McIvER, D., Greek Cities in Italy and Sicily, Oxford 1931. 
RAOUL-ROCHETTE, Histoire de retablissement des colonies grecques, Paris 1815. 
RAVEL, O., The Colts of Ambracia, New York 1928, (Numismatic Notes and 

Monographs) . 
Recueil des inscriptions iuridiques grecques, edited by R. Dareste, B. Haussoulier 

and Th. Reinach, Paris 1891. 
ROBERT, Louis, Villes d'Asie Mineure, Paris 1935. 

Etudes Anatoliennes, Paris 1937. 

Hellenica, Paris 1940-. 

ROEBUCK, G., Ionian Trade and Colonization, New York 1959. 

ROHLIG, J., Der Handel von Milet, Hamburg 1933. 

ROSTOVTZEFF, M. I., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 

Oxford 1941. 

SAKELLARIOU, M. B., La Migration grecque en lonie, Athens 1958. 
SANCTIS, G. DE, Storia dei Greci, Florence 1942. 

SANDYS, J. E., Aristotle 9 s Constitution of Athens , and edition, London 1912. 
SCHAEFER, A. D., Demosthenes und seine %eit, 2nd edition, Leipzig 1885-7. 
SCHAEFER, HANS, Staatsform und Politik, Leipzig 1932. 
SCHMID, P. B., Studien zu griechischen Ktisissagen, Freiburg in der Schweiz 1947. 
SELTMAN, G., Athens, its History and Coinage, Cambridge 1924. 

Greek Coins, 2nd edition, London 1955. 

SHELOV, D. B., Antichni Mir v severnom Prichernomorye, Moscow 1956. 
STARR, CHESTER G., The Origins of Greek Civilization, London 1962. 
SYMONDS, JOHN, Remarks upon an essay entitled the History of the Colonization of the 

Free States of Antiquity, applied to the present contest between Great Britain and 

her American Colonies, London 1778. 

SZANTO, E., Das griechische Burgerrecht, Freiburg i.B. 1892. 
TAYLOUR, LORD WILLIAM, Mycenean Pottery in Italy, Cambridge 1958. 
TOD, M. N., Greek International Arbitration, Oxford 1913. 
URE, P. N., The Origin of Tyranny, Cambridge 1922. 
VALESIUS, H., Polybii etc. Excerpta, Henricus Valesius nunc primum edidit, Latine 

vertit, notisque illustravit, Paris 1634. 
VALLET, G., Rhegion et %ancle, Paris 1958. 

VINOGRADOFF, SIR PAUL, Outlines of Historical Jurisprudence, Oxford 1920-22. 
WALBANK, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius I, Oxford 1957. 
WALDSTEIN, C., The Argive Heraeum, New York 1902. 
WENTKER, H., Sizilien und Athen, Heidelberg 1956. 
WILHELM, A., Griechische Inschriften rechtlichen Inhalts, Athens 1951. 
WILL, E., Korinthiaka, Paris 1955. 
WUILLEUMIER, P., Tarente, Paris 1939. 



INTRODUCTION 

c /""\ u AENAM porro fuerint haec iura quae originibus debeban- 
VjLtur non alienum fuerit paucis hoc loco perstringere/ wrote 
Valesius in 1634.* and initiated the modern investigation of the 
relations between Greek colonies and their mother cities. These 
relations attract attention not only from the intrinsic interest of 
colonizing activity, but also because of the special nature of 
Greek colonies. A North-American colonist from Britain was a 
citizen of his mother country and occupied land regarded as 
British territory at least in theory a simple position. The 
Greek colony's position vis-a-vis its mother city was generally 
less simple: they had a closer tie of relationship than existed 
between Greek states in general, yet as a rule the colony formed 
a separate city-state. Thus there was scope for great variety of 
relations, a variety which exemplifies the conflict between 
diversity and unity constantly found in Greek interstate politics. 
There is no need to tell the history of the investigation of these 
relations in detail, 2 but the landmarks may be noted. The col- 
lection of the relevant passages in ancient authors may be said 
to have been virtually completed by J. P. de Bougainville in 
1745 with the first separate book on the subject. 3 Later in the 
same century the topic received special attention owing to the 
conflict between Britain and her American colonies. Many 
pamphlets were written both in French and English with the 
aim of finding justification in the practices of the ancients for 
whatever view their authors supported. 4 The scholarly search 

1 In his edition of Polybius, Polybii etc. Excerpta, Henricus Valesius nunc 
primum edidit, Latine vertit, notisque illustravit (Parisiis MDGXXXIV), 6-8. 

2 For a good bibliography of the early work on the subject see K. F. 
Hermann, Lehrbuch der griechischen Staatsalterthilmer (Lehrbuch der griechischen 
Antiquitdten, Theill} y 1855 edition, section 73. 

3 Dissertation qui a remporte le prix de I'Academie Royals des Inscriptions et 
Belles Lettres en l*ann$e 1745. Quels etaient les droits des Metropolis greques sur 
lews colonies; les devoirs des colonies envers les metropoles; et les engagemens reciproques 
des unes et des autres (Paris r 745) . 

4 Two characteristic examples are A History of the Colonization of the Free 
States of Antiquity, applied to the present contest between Great Britain and her 
American colonies, published anonymously but in fact by William Barron, 



Xviii INTRODUCTION 

for truth was not the guiding principle of these works, and the 
bias and irrelevance which they introduced into the investi- 
gation found their way into later compilations. 1 

The first considerable work of more than antiquarian interest 
today is the thesis of G. Diesterweg. 2 For this is the first full 
treatment which can be called modern in precision and logical 
approach. If the literary evidence alone were available the only 
advance on Diesterweg possible would be by reinterpretation. 
This might well represent real advance, but it is the archaeo- 
logical, and especially the epigraphic, evidence which has most 
clearly enlarged the material available for the study of this 
question and provides the special justification for a new treat- 
ment. 

Since Diesterweg's work the subject has been treated in sec- 
tions of more general studies, 3 and several modern articles and 
books are concerned with it more or less directly. These will 
naturally be considered in the course of the work that follows. 4 It 
was Kirsten who suggested that the question needed new in- 
vestigation as a whole. 5 It is hoped that the present work will go 
some way towards meeting that need. 

London 1777, and Remarks upon an essay entitled the History of the Colonization 
of the Free States of Antiquity, applied to the present contest between Great Britain 
and her American Colonies > by John Symonds (London 1778). 

1 As e.g. Raoul-Rochette, Histoire de retablissment des colonies grecques 
(Paris 1815), 45 ff. 

2 De iure coloniarum Graecarum (Berlin 1865). 

3 As e.g. Coleman Phillipson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient 
Greece and Rome (London 1911), II ch. 19, 'Colonies and their Relationship 
to the Mother Country', in which good sense is marred by the acceptance 
of errors taken over from the eighteenth-century writers on the subject; 
Busolt/Swoboda 1274-9, Mutterstadt und Pflanzstadt, a good brief intro- 
duction to Greek colonies, very well documented, in which the colony- 
metropolis relationship is also briefly considered. The importance and 
significance of the relationship is well expressed by Schaefer in his article 
'Eigenart und Wesenziige der griechischen Kolonisation', Heidelberger Jahr- 
biicher, 1960, p. 91. 

4 My manuscript was unfortunately already with the printer when 
Dr. Jacob Seibert kindly sent me his doctoral dissertation, Metropolis und 
Apoikie, Wiirzburg, 1963. 

5 See R.E. 2. Reihe VII, 2, 1726. 



CHAPTER I 
PROLEGOMENA 

Principles of arrangement 

A GREEK colonization could be said to have gone on from 
Mycenean times till the Hellenistic period it is necessary to 
define and defend the time limits observed in this study. 

The essential character of Greek colonization which makes 
the relations between colony and mother city worth study has 
been stated in the Introduction. It has this character as a pro- 
duct of the world of the polis, of independent city-states. The 
indications are that this world did not exist in the Mycenean 
period, 1 so that Mycenean colonization 2 may be excluded. 
There is more difficulty with regard to the colonies of the 
migratory period. 3 

Modern historians tend to see a clear difference between 
these colonies and those founded during the great colonizing 
movement from the later eighth century onwards. The date of 
the Ionian Migration (and the Aeolian and Dorian coloniza- 
tion in the same regions) is a matter of great uncertainty, though 

1 This can be said confidently without going so far as Finley in stressing 
the oriental organization of society in Mycenean times; see M. I. Finley, 
The World of Odysseus (London 1956), 159 ff.; his 'Homer and Mycenae: 
Property and Tenure', Historia vi 1957, 133 ff, illustrates convincingly the 
break between Bronze Age and Iron Age Greece. See also Starr, Origins of 
Greek Civilization (London 1962) 42 ff. 

2 On the Mycenean colonization in the Aegean see Sakellariou, La Migra- 
tion greque en lonie (Athens 1958) 325 ff, and Cassola, La Ionia nel mondo 
miceneo (Naples 1957) especially 302-12. For criticism of some of the theories 
in this book see Mellink's review, AJA\x.iii 9 1959, 294 f. A justifiably cautious 
attitude to ideas of widespread Mycenean colonization is maintained by 
J. M. Cook, Greek Settlement in the Eastern Aegean and Asia Minor,, CAH I and 
II, revised edition (Cambridge 1961) i4f, who refuses to assume that 
Mycenean pottery 'necessarily betokens a Greek population', and convinc- 
ingly refutes the hypothesis of a continuous Greek occupation of Ionia from 
Bronze Age times, in which the Dark Age migrations would be merely a 
reinforcement of existing Greek settlements. 

3 Though even here it seems doubtful if we should talk of a world of 
independent city states. J. M. Cook sees in the reconstructed Smyrna of the 
early seventh century 'the first certain and unambiguous apparition of the 
recognized Hellenic polis* (32). 



2 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

it now seems certain that there were Greeks in Asia Minor by c. 
1000 B.C. at the latest, so that some of the settlements there were 
fully two hundred years earlier than the earliest historical 
colonies. 1 The origins of these settlements were also often not 
clear. However, colonies of this earlier stage are described in the 
same terms as the historical colonies by Greek writers. To 
Thucydides the origin of the Ionian colonies of Athens, or of 
Melos, was a reason for close relations with the metropolis in 
exactly the same way as that of historical colonies like Potidaea. 
It would seem wrong therefore to exclude these colonies com- 
pletely from discussion. But if it is, as we shall see, very difficult 
to find continuity in the relationship between a historical 
colony and its metropolis, it is clearly impossible with colonies 
of the Greek dark age. So it is best to assume that evidence for 
the relations of such colonies with their mother cities cannot be 
used to show anything more than ideas of the classical period. 
From the Hellenistic and Roman periods there is quite a 
body of evidence, much of it epigraphical, concerning the rela- 
tions between colonies and mother cities. But many of these ties 
had been recently revived or indeed created, and where an- 
tiquity is claimed for them the evidence is sometimes fabricated 
or at best embellished. 2 In addition, the reason for maintaining 
or reviving these relationships was a sentimental attachment to 
a great past rather than any important practical effect they 
might have in a world of great empires. It seems right, therefore, 
to exclude this Hellenistic and Roman evidence; for it adds 
nothing to our knowledge of a relationship born of the world of 
independent poleis. 

1 The discovery of protogeometric pottery at Old Smyrna especially has 
invalidated the belief, widely held till recently (see e.g. J. H. Jongkees, 
Studia Varia Carolo Gulielmo Vollgraff (Amsterdam 1948) 71-7), that the move- 
ment should be dated to the ninth century or later. Cook's Greek Settlement., 
op. cit., is a very good brief treatment of the subject based on the most 
recent archaeological exploration. For chronology see especially 4-8 (Aeolic) 
and 13 (Ionic). His sober and approximate dating is preferable to the more 
ambitious and precise chronology proposed by Sakellariou, op. cit., in an 
exhaustive section on the chronology of the Ionian Migration (305-58, 
conclusions 357). 

2 The matter is well expressed by Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes (Paris 1937) 
248. Examples concerning the help given in embassies between colonies and 
mother cities were listed by Robert, BCH Ixii 1938, 498. To these may be 
added the inscriptions Milet 1.3, nos. 141, 155, which are not concerned with 
specifically diplomatic assistance. 



PROLEGOMENA 3 

The material that has been admitted has been organized in a 
way that requires some explanation. For a study of this kind 
there would seem to be a choice between two arrangements. 
First, one could adopt a descriptive principle and try to state the 
character and scope of the colony-metropolis relationship topic 
by topic. The advantage of such an arrangement is that it 
would reveal how far this relationship was uniform or regular in 
ancient Greece. But it would also be likely to conceal the dis- 
parate nature of the evidence and its chance survival. Worst of 
all, it would inevitably blur important chronological differences. 

The second possibility would be to use a chronological 
arrangement and treat these relations in the various periods 
from the eighth century to the fourth. To a historian this is 
obviously an attractive method. Unfortunately, however, the 
evidence is so predominantly from the fifth century or later that 
it is impossible to give a satisfactory and convincing general 
picture of the state of relations between Greek colonies and 
mother cities in, say, the seventh century. As will be clear from 
the subsequent discussion of the nature of the evidence, this 
principle of arrangement would involve a great deal of repeti- 
tion and continual discussion of the question whether later 
evidence or later analogies are applicable to the earlier periods. 

So neither principle would provide by itself a satisfactory 
arrangement. The chance character of the evidence also pre- 
sents a special difficulty. So much of it consists of odd statements 
referring to one moment in a colony's history, that it is ex- 
tremely rare to be able to follow the relationship of a colony and 
its mother city over the years. Aristotle could ask (Pol. Ill 
1276 a 35 ff) whether a city could be called the same city when 
its citizens are constantly changing through birth and death, 
and the transformation of a community over the centuries, 
though it keeps the same name, place, and even constitution, 
can be demonstrated by many examples. When the evidence is 
confined to one or two moments in a history of some centuries it 
is too easy to forget these changes, and to assume that the one 
moment reveals an unchanging relationship between two un- 
changing communities over the whole period in question. 
Fortunately we can go some way towards meeting both this 
difficulty and those inherent in the two possible principles of 
arrangement, thanks to a special characteristic of colonial affairs. 



4 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

The history of colonies in modern times shows the difference 
between the arrangements and aspirations of the original 
founders and colonists and the subsequent relations of the .two 
communities. Closely linked though they are, the act of founda- 
tion is one thing, the subsequent relations another. They are 
therefore discussed separately in this study. In this way it should 
be easier to avoid the danger mentioned in the last paragraph. 
But such a division also allows the two principles of arrange- 
ment to operate in the areas where each is appropriate. Greek 
ideas and practices with regard to the act of founding a colony 
varied much less than the subsequent relations between 
colonies and mother cities. Generalization is therefore easier 
and more justified in discussing the former, so that in this sec- 
tion (Part I) the descriptive principle dominates. Subsequent 
relations (Part II) are treated broadly chronologically, though 
the descriptive principle may also be admitted. For the isolated 
pieces of evidence may be grouped with the few examples 
where the relations between a mother city and its colonies are 
illustrated fairly abundantly by the evidence. In this way a 
mainly chronological treatment nevertheless allows each main 
topic to be considered as a whole. 

Some generalizations and distinctions 

Although it would be quite superfluous to give a general 
account of the nature of Greek colonization, 1 it is necessary to 
have clear certain general considerations about the colonies of 
the period from the eighth century to the fourth in order to 
understand the nature of the problem before us. The normal 
Greek word for any colony was wioiKia, but distinctions of 
language were possible if it was strongly felt that a distinction of 
form should be recognized. Thus the term cleruchy (xhriQov%ia} 
was used to describe a certain type of Athenian colony which 
will require consideration later, and trading-posts were dis- 
tinguished by the special name S/LWOQIOV. This latter distinction 
raises two questions. The first is the place of trade in general in 
Greek colonization. 

1 The general lines are well understood, as can be seen from two recent 
brief accounts: the article by Burn, OCD s.v. Colonization, Greek, and 
Bengtson's short statement on page 69 of the Erlauterung volume of the 
Grosser Historischer Weltatlas /, Vorgeschichte und Altertum (Bayr. Schulbuch 
Verlag 1953). 



PROLEGOMENA 5 

The sane paper of A. Gwynn 1 marshals most of the evidence 
and arguments to prove that in the main the great Greek 
colonizing movement was caused by overpopulation and desire 
for land. This was a necessary correction of earlier ideas of 
colonization for trade, which arose largely from misapplying the 
analogy of modern colonization. But in spite of Gwynn's work 
scholars have continued to attribute commercial aims to early 
colonization. A notable example is the hypothesis that Corinth 
had explicit commercial intentions in her Western colonization 
at the end of the eighth century. It is therefore still necessary to 
stress that most Greek colonies were founded to be self- 
sufficient Greek poleis, with enough land to feed their popula- 
tion. 2 Thus the nature of their relations with their mother cities 
is not normally determined by commercial considerations. 

The second question concerns the character of the trading 
stations (e^noqia}^ which were occasionally established, from 
the seventh century certainly, and even from the eighth, if this 
was the nature of the settlement at Al Mina excavated by 
Woolley. 4 The most famous of these trading stations, Naucratis, 
was founded in the Nile delta in the seventh century. 5 Its 
exceptional character as a privileged settlement in a more 
developed country is rightly emphasized by Gwynn, 6 but for 
the present purpose it is enough to note that the settlement was 
unlike most Greek city-states and had no mother city or cities in 
the normal sense. 7 

1 JHS xxxviii 1918, 88 ff. 

2 It is not, however, necessary for me to present the arguments again, as 
they are well set out elsewhere. Apart from Gwynn's paper, compare R. M. 
Cook, JHS kvi 1946, 80 ff, and G. Vallet, Rhegion et ancle, 199 ff, who puts 
the colonizing movement in the general setting of theories about the ancient 
Greek economy. It is firmly stated in Busolt/Swoboda (1264): 'die meisten 
Kolonien waren zunachst Ackerbaukolonien*. 

3 The significance of the word is discussed by G. Roebuck, CP xlvi 1951, 
219 n. 22. Herodotus seems to use the word for any community living from 
trade, while Thucydides seems to stress more the meaning 'trading- 
factory'. 

* See Woolley, JHS Iviii 1938, i ff and especially p. 12; Dunbabin, The 
Greeks and their Eastern Neighbours, 25 ff. 

5 See Roebuck, 'The Organization of Naukratis', CP xlvi 1951, 211-20. 

8 p. 106. 

7 This is clear from Herodotus' description, II. 178. Roebuck denied this 
exceptional character in the article cited (see especially 2i6f), but his 
grounds are slight when compared with Herodotus' statements. The good 
evidence for his view (e.g. the coinage) is late (ibid.), and the existence of 



6 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

The same characteristics may perhaps be seen in two less 
famous settlements in the Adriatic, Adria and Spina. Spina is 
described as a Greek city by Strabo (.214) and excavation has 
supported his description. 1 The pottery finds suggest that it was 
established towards the end of the sixth century. Spina dedi- 
cated certain spoils at Delphi which are set beside the dedica- 
tions of Gyges, Croesus, and Sybaris by Strabo (1X421)5 so that 
presumably the booty was very valuable. 2 In any case the 
tombs 3 show the wealth of the city and its size. The history of 
Adria is much the same as that of Spina, 4 and so is its nature; it 
was a rich trading city. The population of both cities may be 
assumed to have been mixed, 5 and Adria in particular had a 
strong Etruscan element, so that some authorities call it an 
Etruscan city. 6 

We have here, therefore, two large, rich settlements, both of 
which are mentioned from time to time in the ancient sources; 
yet no source names the metropolis of either settlement. 7 In 
view of the regularity with which this information is given it is 
reasonable to conclude that it was not known. And as they were 
founded in a period about which there is a good deal of infor- 
mation it may also be confidently conjectured that these were 
trading settlements of mixed population with no true metro- 
polis, like Naucratis, Trading stations of this sort clearly stand 
outside the relationship of colonies and mother cities and have 
no place in this study. 

the name Naucratis and the ethnic does not prove that it was *a normal 
Greek community'. The existence of an ethnic does not prove any particular 
political status; it could be required for purely geographical description. 
Thus Thucydides can call Samian exiles in Anaia 9 Avaura>v(lII.ig.2; cf. 
IV.75.I and Gomme 1.375 n - 3)- However, in Roebuck's later book, Ionian 
Trade and Colonization (New York 1959) his very good account of the charac- 
ter of Naucratis on p. 135 includes the statement that its organization *is 
neither in the pattern usually given a Greek state nor that of its colony*. 

1 See Beaumont, 'Greek influence in the Adriatic Sea before the fourth 
century B.C. 5 , JHS Ivi 1936, 179. 

2 Ibid. 

3 Published by S. Aurigemma, // R. Museo di Spina (Ferrara 1935); cf. 
Beazley, JHS Ivi 1936, 88. 4 See Beaumont 180 f. 

5 As Beaumont 179. 6 E.g. Livy .33.8, Plut. Camillus 16.2. 

7 Beaumont's article offers many examples of Greek settlements in the 
Adriatic the origin of which is not recorded, and this may be set beside his 
judgment (194) that colonization in the Adriatic was directed to 'certain 
specific ends', all of them commercial. Adria and Spina are only the best 
examples. 



PROLEGOMENA 7 

Among normal Greek colonies distinctions can also be 
drawn which are important for our enquiry, but it would be a 
mistake to try to force them all into rigid categories. Thus 
colonies founded by fugitives from the mother city might be 
expected to have a different relationship from those engendered 
by a peaceably arranged settlement. So Timaeus argued that 
Epizephyrian Locri could not have been founded by slaves, 
criminals and the like, as one account went, because he had 
seen important evidence to show good relations with the mother 
city. 1 But Taras appears to provide a warning not to rely on 
such arguments too confidently. The tradition was that its 
founders were people of scandalous origins; yet its relations 
with Sparta seem to have been generally close and friendly. 2 

Another distinction of clear relevance to the relations between 
colony and mother city is that between state and private enter- 
prises. This is perhaps particularly important in the later 
period, when definite imperial ambitions can be recognized in 
some Greek colonization; much of the argument is around this 
point, for example, in the question of the nature of Miltiades the 
Elder's colony in the Chersonese. 3 But even in earlier times it is 
a relevant distinction. Oversimplifications, such as that all early 
colonies were private, 4 or that colonial enterprises were gener- 
ally official, 5 should be avoided. For though it is clear that the 
interest of ancient writers in individuals 6 stresses the private 

1 See Polyb. XILg. 

2 The fullest and best account and discussion of the foundation of Taras 
is in Berard, 162-72. Dunbabin agrees in accepting the main lines of the 
tradition, 29 fF. The relations with Sparta will be seen later; they are not 
necessarily particularly close, as Dunbabin affirms (31); Wuilleumier's 
judgment of the matter is more reasonable: 'Tarente a eu de bons rapports 
avec Sparte'; see Tarente, by P. Wuilleumier (Paris 1939) 43. 

3 See Hdt. VI. 34 if. The modern discussion will be resumed below. 

4 As e.g. ClerCj Massalia (Marseilles 1927) 1.124. 

5 As Bengtson, 'Einzelpersonlichkeit und Athenischer Staat', Site. Bayr. 
Akad, 1939, p. 10, who maintained that even in mid-sixth century Greece a 
colonizing expedition without a decree of the community is unthinkable. In 
his Griechische Geschichte 2 (Munich 1960) Bengtson merely says that the com- 
munity named the oikist (89) . 

6 This is to be seen most clearly in the poetical foundation stories which 
have been studied by P. Benno Schmid, Studien zu griechischen Ktisissagen 
(Freiburg i.d. Schweiz 1947); see his generalizations, p. 5. But the same 
tendency affects prose accounts, exaggerating the private initiative of the 
oikist, as e.g. in the story about Archias, the oikist of Syracuse, related in 
[Plut] Am. Nan. 772 f. 



8 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

nature of colonial undertakings, it seems right to infer from two 
examples in Herodotus that both state and private enterprises 
existed throughout the historical colonizing period. The found- 
ation of Gyrene in c. 630 is clearly described by him as a state 
act, 1 while Dorieus 5 abortive colonial expedition of c. 514-512 
is equally clearly a private enterprise. 2 On the other hand it is 
probably a vain hope to try to draw a firm line in the early 
period between colonies founded on individual initiative and 
approved by the state and those established by a decision of the 
community. So these distinctions do not provide an easy or un- 
varying way of assessing the relations of colonies and mother 
cities. 

The character of the evidence 

In the past most writers have simply asked: what was the 
relationship of a Greek colony with its mother city? 3 But this 
was to ignore the existence of various special problems, which 
are so important that they determine the way in which the 
main question should be answered, and perhaps destroy the 
validity of any single answer. These problems are created by the 
nature of the sources. 

Even if we confine ourselves to the great colonizing move- 
ment Greek colonies were being founded from the middle of the 
eighth century; yet articulate evidence, literary or epigraphic, 
for their relations with their mother cities hardly begins until 
the fifth century. Thus even if the source relates earlier events, 
as for example Thucydides' mention of a sea-battle between 
Corcyra and Corinth in c. 664 B.C. (1.13.4), the account may 
clearly be unreliable and will certainly be written from the 
standpoint of a later age. Even this unsatisfactory evidence is 
rarely available. It is much more common to know virtually 
nothing of a colony's relations with its mother city until the 

1 See especially IV. 153. 

2 V.42.2. For the date see Dunbabin, 349. Dunbabin (ibid.) rightly states 
that Dorieus must have had permission from the Spartan state, but appears 
to make too much of this passive approval in calling the enterprise 'Sparta's 
effort' (348). For, as he admits, it is very doubtful whether the state knew 
of the direction and intention of the expedition, and the undertaking of the 
colony at all is very hard to reconcile with Spartan policy of the time. 

3 Compare the form of the question which De Bougainville, op. cit., sets 
out to answer: 'Quels etaient les droits des Metropoles grecques sur leurs 
colonies etc.?' 



PROLEGOMENA 9 

fifth century or later, though this will generally be some two 
centuries or more since its foundation. Thus the relations of 
Olbia, one of Miletus' greatest colonies, with her mother 
city are in almost complete obscurity until the later fourth 
century, when they are briefly but brightly illumined by an 
inscription (Tod 195). 

To Greeks of the fifth and subsequent centuries colonization 
and the relations between colonies and mother cities were of 
vital and immediate interest. Nicias encourages his army before 
its retreat from Syracuse with the reflection that they can settle 
down and form a city; 1 Xenophon (Anab. .6.15 ff) entertains 
seriously the idea of persuading his men to found a city on the 
coast of the Black Sea; the same author takes great pains to 
point out the advantages of a site he noted, stating the popula- 
tion it could support, 2 the quality of its harbour, the water- 
supply and many other details (Anab. 1.4.3 ff); Plato's 
references to colonization in the Laws (740 e; 708 b) show the 
same close familiarity; to him it is 'the ancient remedy' in case 
of overpopulation, and he is well aware of the difficulties both of 
foundation and in subsequent relations with the mother city. It 
is unnecessary to multiply examples, but Thucydides requires 
more careful consideration. For it is from Thucydides that we 
have not only some of our best early information about Greek- 
colonies, but also some of the most explicit statements about the 
relations of colony and mother city to be found in a classical 
author. 

It is his practice to take great care to give the origins of any 
colony he mentions. This is clearest in the famous account of 
the settlement of Sicily at the beginning of Book VI, but perhaps 
more striking when it occurs by the way in normal narrative, 
as for example at V.6. i . 

6 ds Klecov . . . QQii&iJievcx; K rfjs 'Hiovoi; Zrayiqco [tsv nqoafidhfai 
anoinia %al ov% ells, raArppov ds 17]V aoiaiv anomiav 
Kara 



1 Thuc. VII.774. 

2 Ten thousand. This was widely regarded as a good size for a city in the 
fifth and fourth centuries, as Schaefer has shown in Historia x 1961, 292-317. 
See 309 f for Xenophon's ideas about colonization in the Pontus. 

3 'Cleon ... set out from. Eion and attacked Stagirus, a colony of the 
Andrians, but did not take it. However, he forcibly captured Galepsus, the 
Thasian colony.' 



10 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Even more significant for our purposes are his references to 
the relations between colonies and mother cities. Of the remarks 
concerning the dispute between Corinth and Corcyra over 
Epidamnus 1 John Symonds wrote in 17 78,* Thucydides has 
thrown more light on the Graecian colonization, in the passages 
that are referred to, than any other ancient writer whatever. 3 
From them we learn of a colony transferring itself to a new 
metropolis and by implication recognizing the metropolis 5 
supremacy, of the shame attached to a war between colony and 
mother city, of various religious obligations which a colony was 
expected to fulfil, and of an undefined hegemony which a 
metropolis expected to enjoy. According to Thucydides 
(L6o.i; 66) Corinth also regarded herself as the natural 
protector of her colony Potidaea, and saw the Athenian 
attack on Potidaea as a reason for war. But Thucydides 
stresses this matter so strongly in his enumeration of the 
opposing forces at Syracuse that we need not list all the other 
examples. 

In this long chapter (11.57) Thucydides is concerned to 
show that just causes and the claims of kinship were largely 
displaced as reasons for going to war by chance, expediency or 
compulsion. To mention some of his examples: the Rhodians 
fought against their colonists the Geloans; the people of 
Cythera fought Spartans, though they were Spartan colonists; 
the Corcyreans fought against Corinthians and Syracusans; a 
few Megarian exiles fought against Selinuntians, who were of 
Megarian origin; and Cretans, who had joined in founding 
Gela, fought against their colonists. The whole chapter reveals 
the importance Thucydides set on origins, and his view that 
these should normally determine alignments in war. He is so 
meticulous in finding examples that even a few exiles from 
Megara did not escape him. 

As Thucydides provides so much of our evidence, it is im- 
portant to see if his interest in the relations of colonies and 
mother cities is peculiar to him. For this would make him less 
valuable as a witness to common Greek ideas on the subject in 
his day, and might even cast doubt on his statements of facts, 
motives or political arguments in this field. For example, he 

1 Thuc. 1.24 ff. 

2 Op. cit., 35- 



PROLEGOMENA II 

states that Athens was the metropolis of the Ionian cities. 1 But 
although it seems probable that the Athenian share in the 
origin of the Ionian cities was exaggerated in the fifth century as 
a justification for the Athenian empire, 2 both Herodotus and 
Aristophanes make the same statements, and stress the political 
significance of the Athenian connection with the Ionian cities. 3 
This shows that Thucydides is at least reflecting correctly an 
opinion commonly held at the time. 

Another example is Melos' status as a colony of Sparta, which 
Thucydides makes an important matter both in debate and 
behaviour during the Athenian attack on the island. 4 But the 
connection is also emphasized as a matter of practical impor- 
tance by Xenophon (Hell. 11.2.3) when he describes the fears 
at Athens on the news of Aigospotami. The Athenians expected 
to suffer the fate they had administered to others; and he names 
the Melians first, implying that it is their destruction that the 
Spartans would especially be expected to avenge. Herodotus 
(VIII.48) also shows interest in this relationship. 

1 1.12.4; c 1-2.6. and the two occasions where he described the lonians 
as an 'AQqvaicov (II. 1 5.4. and 11.57.4) , both of which the scholiast explains 
as meaning the lonians were apoikoi of Athens (Thuc. Scholia, pp. 121, 
394).. 

2 Since Wilamowitz' treatment (Sitz. preuss. Akad. 1906, 57-79 = Kleine 
Schriften, Berlin 1937, V.i. 156 if) the view has gained ground that the 
Athenian connection was a comparatively late invention. Jacoby, following 
Wilamowitz in the main, affirms that the claim of Athens to be the founder 
of the Ionian cities was not consolidated or widely acknowledged till the 
time of the Delian League (see FGH IIIB (Supplement) 1.32-4). Similar 
views, though putting the invention further back, are expressed in Nilsson's 
paper 'Political propaganda in sixth-century Athens', Studies presented to 
D. M. Robinson, II (St. Louis 1953). Sakellariou follows the same line in con- 
sidering the view that Athens was the metropolis of all Ionia a fifth-century 
invention (see La Migration grecque en lonie, 21 ff and especially 29 ff). But, 
as his work shows, the origin of these cities was very mixed. The existence of 
different traditions does not, therefore, deny the Athenian connection; only 
the Athenian monopoly of origin. A more respectful and very satisfactory 
treatment of the tradition is to be found in Roebuck, Ionian Trade and 
Colonization 25 ff and a vigorous defence of it against the modern attacks in 
Berard, U Expansion et la Colonisation grecques (Paris 1960), 50 f. J. M. Cook 
also provides strong reasons for accepting the kernel of truth that 'Athens 
was the main focus of emigration/ op. cit., 12 f. 

3 Hdt. 1.147.2; 11.46.2; IX.io6.3. Arist. Lys. 582. This line and its 
context are convincingly elucidated by Hugill (Panhellenism in Aristophanes, 
by W. H. Hugill, Chicago 1936) 67 ff. He shows that 'the cities ... the 
colonies of this land* must mean the Ionian cities and Aegean islands. 

4 See .89; 104; 106. 



12 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Probably then Thucydides is not untypical of his age in 
stressing the importance of the relations between colonies and 
mother cities. But even if Thucydides himself should not be 
regarded as isolated, the view has been advanced that the idea 
of the relationship between colonies and mother cities was 
especially influential in his time. 1 Now it is true that many of the 
best examples of the practical effectiveness of the relationship 
come from this period. In addition to the examples known from 
Thucydides there is the notable control exercised by Sinope 
over her colonies, which Xenophon describes (Anab. .5 ff), 
and the hegemony of Argos over colonies in Crete which seems 
to be revealed in the inscription Tod 33. 

It is not difficult to show that the idea of the relationship was 
similarly effective in the fourth century, and, if this period be 
admitted as relevant, in Hellenistic times; for the inscriptions 
reveal a strong belief in the importance of the relationship. 2 But 
the important question is whether the interest in colonies and 
the active relations between colonies and mother cities found in 
the fifth century arose at that time, or existed in the previous 
two centuries, only hidden by the lack of source material 
capable of revealing it. 

In a recent article, 3 Will has suggested implicitly that the 
idea of the relationship became politically effective in the sixth 
century. He simply assumes that early colonies were indepen- 
dent, and thus quite different from the colonies of Corinth 
under the tyrants and of Athens in the sixth and fifth centuries, 
which form the main subject of his study. In his view the 
dependent colony appears in association with the attempt to 
build up overseas empires. There is, as we shall see, some truth 
in this picture, 4 but though the shortage of source material may 
make it very difficult to investigate the character of the earlier 

1 Notably by Kirsten, Die Insel Kreta (Leipzig 1936) 17 f; cf. R.E. s.v. 
Tylissos 1726 ff. 

2 The Hellenistic ones are mentioned above, p. 2. From the fourth cen- 
tury there are the stones concerning Epidaurus and Astypalaea (LG. 
IV 2 . 1.47) and Miletus and her colonies (Milet 1.3 nos. 136, 137). 

3 'Sur 1'evolution des rapports entre colonies et metropoles en Grece a 
partir du Vie siecle', La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 413-60. 

4 Though the attempt to classify colonies into different categories sharply 
distinguished from each other (on p. 459 we are given a list of five distinct 
types) seems unhistorical, and leads to inconsistencies and difficulties of 
interpretation. 



PROLEGOMENA 13 

colonies, it is unsatisfactory simply to assume their nature with- 
out discussion. 

In looking back to the sixth century for the appearance of the 
relationship's effectiveness. Will is implicitly approving the 
extrapolation to earlier times of the attitude found in the fifth 
century. But can we accept the fifth-century sources and their 
attitude as valid even for the sixth century? To argue back from 
later conditions to earlier times is clearly dangerous; but to 
assume that there was no effective relationship simply because 
we hear nothing of relations until,, say, the fifth century is, given 
the state of the sources, too negative. The assumption of con- 
tinuity and the argument from silence are the Scylla and 
Charybdis of this investigation. It is therefore extremely im- 
portant to remember these dangers, and in each case to make 
the origin and nature of the source material one of the first con- 
siderations. 

But there are ways of escaping in part from the stranglehold 
of the fifth-century sources. The most obvious is to use the 
archaeological evidence from the earlier period. While this has 
the great advantage that it is primary and unaffected by the 
ideas of later periods, the information yielded by material 
objects must remain very limited. Occasionally they show 
artistic connections between a colony and its mother city. For 
example, Taras seems to have been influenced by Sparta in 
sculpture and architecture in late archaic times, 1 and Syracuse 
and Corcyra were so markedly under Corinth's influence in 
these fields from an earlier date, that Dunbabin affirmed 2 that 
there must have been continuous interchange of men and ideas. 

Again this evidence sometimes suggests a close commercial 
link between a mother city and a colony, but this is even harder 
to prove. While Corinthian pottery is dominating all markets in 
the West, its appearance at Syracuse does not necessarily sig- 
nify special commercial relations between colony and mother 
city. Similarly Miletus' trade with her colonies must be set be- 
side her trade in other directions. 3 Furthermore, if the Attic 
ware found in Etruria was largely brought in Ionian ships, 4 this 

1 See Wuilleumier, Tarente, 260, 314, 334; Ashmole, Proc. Brit. Acad. xx 
1934, u. 2 p. 284. 

8 See Rohlig, Der Handel von Milet (Hamburg 1933) especially 26 f and the 
section 37-52. 

4 As Vallet seems to have shown, Rhegion et ancle, 191. 



14 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

shows that commercial links suggested by pottery finds may 
sometimes have been exceedingly tenuous. 1 And it is pottery 
that forms the dominating part of all finds. Coins are a specially 
informative category of material objects, but their significance 
is often very hard to interpret, even when they obviously bear 
on the colony-metropolis relationship, as do those of the 
Corinthian colonies, which will be considered below. Thus the 
directness of the archaeological evidence is often offset by its 
limited application and by difficulties of interpretation. 

A second way is the investigation of what we may, after 
Thucydides, call nomima.* As we should expect, it was normal 
for the colony to continue the cults, calendar, dialect, script, 
state offices and citizen divisions of its mother city. Two modern 
studies, BilabePs of Ionian colonization 3 and Hanell's of the 
Megarian colonies, 4 have shown this beyond doubt. This 
material, being embedded in the continuous life of the com- 
munity, is not subject to the objections which we have seen can 
be made against much of the literary and epigraphic evidence 
bearing more directly on the relationship between colony and 
metropolis. On the other hand it is necessary to discern clearly 
just how far it reveals these relations. It could be said that the 
careful maintenance of the mother city's customs in the colony 
shows at least a living realization of origin. But we have exam- 
ples where an institution which was later changed in the metro- 
polis was preserved in the colony. 5 This may show that the 
preservation of the nomima of the metropolis could be entirely 
due to the colony's conservatism and owe nothing to a con- 
tinued connection with the mother city. It is therefore impor- 
tant to recognize that there may be a distinction between the 
preservation of the metropolis' nomima by a colony and an 
active relationship between the two cities. 6 

1 Compare also R. M. Cook's very just warnings against drawing con- 
clusions about commercial and political connections from the evidence of 
painted pottery; Jahrbuch d. deutsch. arch. Inst. Ixxiv 1959, 114-23. 

2 E.g. VI.5.I. 

s Die ionische Kolonisation by F. Bilabel, Philologus Supplementband 
XI V.i (Leipzig 1920). 

4 Megarische Studien by Krister Hanell (Lund 1934) Part II. 

5 SeeBilabel, 126 and 129, on the Milesian official, the empty tog; 174, 
on thephylae of Samos. 

6 This has not always been recognized in modern studies, though it was 
stressed more than a century ago by K. F. Hermann, op. cit. Thus Bilabel 



PROLEGOMENA 15 

A more subtle inference from the preservation of some of 
these institutions has been suggested, which would bring them 
into direct (if ill-defined) connection with an active relationship 
between colony and mother city. 1 In the primitive city the 
family organization was extremely important, and the sub- 
divisions of the city were based on it, genos, phratry, tribe. But 
these family groupings were also indissolubly bound up with 
religion, 2 and it is therefore possible that identity of cult be- 
tween colony and metropolis implies that connections were 
maintained between the kinship groups of colony and mother 
city. Identity of cult between colony and metropolis can very 
often be found, as the studies mentioned have shown; it may be 
taken to have been the rule. So that we have here a possible sign 
of living connection between colonies and mother cities through 
their family organizations. Unfortunately it is impossible to be 
more definite than this, and impossible to be at all precise as to 
the detailed way in which these connections might work. To 
unearth and list all examples of identity of cult between colonies 
and mother cities would therefore seem a fruitless labour, and 
would add nothing to our knowledge of the colony-metropolis 
relationship. 

So in general the nomima of a colony are much more im- 
portant in determining the origins of a colony, where these 
are disputed. 3 They contribute at best indirectly to our 
knowledge of the relationship between colonies and mother 
cities. 

If these two ways of reaching back beyond the fifth-century 
sources only help a little, some of the evidence concerning 
mixed colonies seems to show that the relationship was impor- 
tant from the beginning. It was very common in Greek 
colonization for settlers of different origins to join in one colonial 



lumps together preservation of nomima and political relations under the one 
term 'Beziehungen'. Another bad example is provided by Rohlig, 1 7 f. 

1 See Berard, L? Expansion et la colonisation grecgues, 89. 

2 One very interesting example of this comes from Selinus; we have 
attested Zeus Meilichios of the Kleulidai, i.e. of a certain genos. But in this 
instance the mother city, Megara, provides evidence of the same deity 
connected with another genos. On all this see Hanell, 178. 

3 For example, they are most profitably used in this way by Hanell to 
establish the origins of the population of Byzantium; see 123-8, 142, 169, 
183, 201, 211 f. 



iQ COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

enterprise. In late instances we are sometimes informed that 
this mixture of origin militated against good relations with the 
mother city. At Amphipolis the settlers of Argilian origin were 
under the influence of Argilus and so encouraged to betray 
their new city to Brasidas. 1 These events followed quite shortly 
after the colony's foundation, but at Gyrene the groups of 
different origin at least remained distinct over a long period. 
When Demonax: of Mantinea was called in to settle civil strife., 
he divided the inhabitants into three tribes: one of Theraeans 
and perioikoi, one of Peloponnesians and Cretans, and one of 
all the islanders. 2 This was five generations after the foundation 
and two after the subsidiary immigration. 3 It may be that the 
preservation of such distinctions implies a living connection 
with the place of origin. And the same inference could be drawn 
from the general statement of Aristotle that difference of origin 
was very often a cause of civil strife (PoL 1303 a 25). Most of his 
examples concern colonies that received later immigrants, but 
at Sybaris and Thurii stasis occurred among the original mixed 
settlers. 

The persistence of distinctions of origin may be found in 
mixed colonies even if they had one titular metropolis. But 
mixed colonies said to have two or more mother cities seem to 
reveal further significant information. There are a few passages 
in ancient authors which throw light on this situation. First, 
Strabo relates (1.243) that the leaders of the expedition to 
found the colony of Cumae, Hippocles from Cyme and Megas- 
thenes from Chalcis, agreed that Chalcis should be the mother 
city but the name should be taken from Cyme. Then Plutarch 
(Q,.G. 30) tells that when Acanthus was founded jointly by 
Andrians and Chalcidians, the Chalcidian leader ran ahead to 
claim it for Chalcis, but the Andrian leader anticipated him by 
throwing his spear into the city. The Andrian claim was later 
upheld by arbitration. Finally Strabo (1.264) relates (his 
source being Antiochus) that Taras and Thurii settled a long 
struggle over Siris with the agreement that they should make a 

1 Time. IV. 1 03.3 f. 

2 Hdt. I V.i 6 1. 2 fF. For these events see Chamoux, Cyr&ne sons la monarchie 
des Batliades (Paris 1953) 139 ff. He suggests that the reason for the disturb- 
ance was that the later immigrants had been kept underprivileged, but 
this is not stated by Herodotus. 

3 Hdt. IV. 159.2. 



PROLEGOMENA IJ 

joint settlement but that it should be adjudged Tarentine. 
Doubt might be cast on the first two passages, though they 
seem too circumstantial to dismiss out of hand. If they are 
accepted they show, together with the third which refers to a 
much later period, that the attempt was sometimes made in 
mixed colonies to recognize one city only as metropolis. This 
must therefore have been thought to be of importance for the 
future. 

Other examples can be found revealing the same tendencies, 
even when the ancient sources do not say this expressly. The 
joint foundations of Corinth and Corcyra are particularly good 
examples of the tendency for one mother city to monopolize a 
mixed colony, but they are rather late for our present purpose. 1 
There are, however, two early examples: one, Rhegium, which 
seems to show the persistence of distinctions of origin, the other, 
Gela, revealing the tendency of one mother city to arrogate that 
title to itself alone. 

Rhegium's foundation is variously told in the tradition. 2 
Strabo (1.257) quotes Antiochus as saying that the Zancleans 
summoned the settlers from Chalcis and provided the oikist, 
Antimnestus. Strabo himself 3 gives the initiative to Delphi, 
after the Chalcidians, who had suffered a bad harvest, had 
dedicated one-tenth of their citizens to the god. He adds that 
some Messenian exiles were associated in the foundation. 
Though details may vary, the other sources also clearly state 
that it was a Chalcidian colony. 4 

Its Chalcidian nature is revealed not only by its close con- 
nection with Zancle, at the foundation, if we accept Antiochus' 

1 1 treat them fully in Chapter VII. 

2 Vallet gives a full account of the literary tradition, Rhegion et ^ancle, 
66 IF. His conclusion (80) virtually agrees with Dunbabin's (12) and accepts 
Antiochus 5 account. His most important remarks concern the question when 
the Messenians were introduced. After presenting other rather slight argu- 
ments he decides (77) that they must have been there from an ancient period 
for Anaxilas to be able to use their origin for political purposes early in the 
fifth century. He then goes on to explain the confused and anachronistic 
account of Pausanias (IV,23.6-io) as reflecting several successive waves of 
Messenian settlers over the centuries (72 ff). This is conjecture, and it may 
be safer to ignore Pausanias, whose confusion has been recognized since 
Bentley; cf. JHS Ixxiv 1954, 34 n. 2. 

3 Vallet seems right in deciding (71) that we cannot really tell whether 
all Strabo's account is from Antiochus or not. 

4 As Thucydides also; see IIL86.2; cf. VI.44.3. 



l8 COLONY AND MOTHER GITY 

account, but also in its subsequent history. 1 Like the Chal- 
cidian cities of Sicily it followed the laws of Charondas of 
Gatane. 2 Its coinage too shows that it turned towards the 
Ghalcidian cities of Sicily rather than to Southern Italy. No 
coins of other Italian cities have been found at Rhegium, 
though many of Sicily and Athens, while conversely, coins of 
Rhegium are rare in Southern Italy but have been found on 
many sites in Sicily. 3 The passage of Androdamas of Rhegium 
to the Chalcidians of Thrace, presumably via the mother city, 
is also a slight indication of contacts with Chalcis itself. 4 

But in spite of this we know that in the fifth century and later 
the dialect was mixed. 5 Moreover, Strabo relates (1.257) that 
the rulers of the city were Messenians till the time of Anaxilas, 6 
himself, according to Thucydides, 7 a Messenian. If these state- 
ments are true, Anaxilas is known as a Messenian some two 
hundred and forty years after the colony's foundation 8 and the 
Messenians had kept themselves separate and privileged all 

1 Vallet's work shows in detail how the two cities go together in com- 
merce, coinage and where we know it (e.g. regarding Anaxilas), in political 
history. 

2 Heraclides Lembus de. reb. pub. 25 (FHG II p. 219). 

3 Milne, Num. Chron. 1938, 36 fF. 

4 See Arist. Pol. 1274 b 2 3> an d Dunbabin 75. The origin of Chalcidian 
Ware seems too uncertain to add to these indications of Ghalcidian con- 
nections. It is discussed at length by Vallet 21 1-28. 

5 See R.E. s.v. Rhegion 493, where the relevant inscriptions are listed. 
They^show a mixed Doric-Chalcidic dialect. They are all later than 
Anaxilas, however, and Dunbabin infers that he introduced more Messenian 
settlers, so that it might be urged that these were responsible for the mixed 
dialect. Dunbabin's argument is from the analogy of Zancle (pp. 12, 396), 
but it remains uncertain that the new inhabitants of Zancle/Mcssene were 
Messenians. Though Strabo says so plainly (VI.268), Thucydides only 
mentions people of mixed origin (1,4.6). Vallet discusses this conflict 
(344 fF) and follows Wallace (JHS Ixxiv 1954, 32 fF) in arguing that Mes- 
senians were introduced into Zancle in the early years of the fifth century. 
The arguments for this are good if not compelling, and it is also reasonable 
to assume that some Messenians would have settled in Rhegium. In any 
case, if one accepts Vallet's hypothesis of several waves of Messenian immi- 
grants into Rhegium, the dialect could owe its Doric element to these later 
arrivals of undetermined date. 

6 The exact words are: 

ol r&v "Prjylvcov r\y^6vB<; p%Qi, 'Avagtta rov Meacryvfav yvovQ del xadforavTo. 

7 VI-4.6. 

8 The exact date of Rhegium's foundation is not given in the tradition, 
but the modern calculation c. 730-20 seems reasonable: see Vallet 56' 
Dunbabin 13, Berard 104! 



PROLEGOMENA 1Q 

those years in a Chalcidian colony. However, Vallet (77) has 
argued recently that Strabo's statement cannot be accepted, 
because 'comme Pindique formellement un passage d'Aristote' 
Anaxilas overcame an oligarchy to install his tyranny, an oli- 
garchy which had held power until that date and consisted of 
descendants of the old Chalcidian colonists. But this is to go 
beyond the sources. Aristotle merely states (Pol. V. 131 6 a) that 
the tyranny succeeded an oligarchy, and the description of that 
oligarchy by Heraclides Lembus 1 does not include information 
about the origin of the oligarchs. 2 Vallet's view (336) that 
Anaxilas replaced Chalcidian rulers and based his power on the 
popular element in which the Messenians were important is 
therefore a conjecture. If we accept it and combine it with his 
other conjecture that there had been several waves of Messenian 
settlers, 3 we need not conclude that the Messenian element had 
kept itself separate and privileged over a very long period. But 
it would still be legitimate to ask why Messenians were allowed 
regularly to settle in the colony over these years; and the ob- 
vious answer would be that the Messenian element already in 
the colony was important. Vallet's conjectures do not seem 
preferable to Strabo's clear statement, but even if one accepts 
them the distinctions of origin among the settlers of Rhegium 
remain. 

Gela was founded, according to Thucydides (VI.4.3) by 
Antiphemus of Rhodes and Entimus of Crete, and evidence for 
the influence of both these islands 4 can be seen in archaeo- 
logical finds and cults. Imports of certain Cretan pottery, found 
nowhere but at Gela, preceded the foundation, and continued 
for a short time in the seventh century. 5 The pithoi used for 
infant burials in the seventh [century were Cretan in type and 
some, at least, were Cretan in manufacture. 6 The story that 
Antiphemus carried off a statue made by Daedalus from 

1 De reb. pub. 25.3; FHG II p. 219. 

2 It is not necessarily right to identify Strabo's leaders (rjysfi oVeg) with the 
1000 oligarchs of Heraclides (as Dunbabin 75 n, i); but they were chosen 
by wealth. 

3 See above p. 17 n. 2. 

4 Neither island was a political unity at this date, and the sources do not 
reveal which cities the oikists came from. 

5 For this pottery see Blakeway, BSA xxxiii, 1933, 183, and Orsi, MA 
Line, xxxi.337 f; cf. Dunbabin 4. 

6 Payne, Necrocorinthia, 5 n. i. 



20 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Omphace 1 seems to show Cretan influence. 2 The Rhodian con- 
nection is shown by Gela's original name, Lindioi, 3 by offerings 
to Athena Lindia as early as the seventh century, 4 and by the 
importance of the cult of Apollo, who may be assumed to be 
Apollo Lindios. 5 

But later evidence gives the impression that the Rhodian 
connection became predominant. The plain or simply decor- 
ated Rhodian ware found in Sicily almost solely at Gela, the 
local imitation of Rhodian forms, the very close agreement in 
burial methods between Rhodes and Gela at the turn of the 
seventh and sixth centurles s seem, taken together, to justify 
Dunbabin's suggestion that there was a fresh Rhodian immi- 
gration into Gela at the time of the foundation of Acragas in 
c. 580 B.C. 6 

In addition Dunbabin suggests that the immigration was part 
of Rhodian policy in connection with the foundation of Acragas 
and the contemporary attempt of Pentathlus to settle Lilybaeum 
with Rhodian and Cnidian forces. Although Strabo and Ps- 
Scymnus, hardly independent witnesses, agree with Thucydides 
that the Geloans founded Acragas, 7 Polybius says plainly that 
the colony was founded by Rhodians, 8 and Rhodian partici- 
pation is indicated by a fragment of Pindar and Pindaric 
scholia. 9 The cults earliest attested at Acragas are Rhodian, as 
Dunbabin notes (311). Further, if the founding of Acragas is 
regarded as part of a Rhodian policy, its great size, which was 

1 Paus, VIII.46.2. 

2 Dunbabin suggests (112) that this might be a 'plant' to establish a 
Cretan claim. 

3 Thuc. VI.4-3. 

4 Lindian Chronicle XXV, in Lindos, Fouittes d'Acropole II, Inscriptions, by 
Ch. Blinkenberg (Berlin and Copenhagen 1941); cf, Dunbabin 112. The 
source of information is the historian Xenagoras, whom Jacoby considers 
(FGHIID. Commentary 702 f.) to be of early Hellenistic date. He also regards 
Wilamowitz's very low opinion of Xenagoras 5 reliability as too hasty, and 
I do not see any general a priori reasons for doubting records of dedications 
of the seventh century. 

5 Diod. XIII. 1 08; cf. Dunbabin 236. 

8 See Dunbabin 138 ff and for the pottery Appendix lie. 

7 Thuc. VI.44; Strabo VI.272; Ps-Scymnus 292 f. 

8 IX.27.7 f; Berard's view (236) that they need not have come direct 
from Rhodes seems to be an attempt to get round the disagreement among 
the sources. 

9 Frg. 105 (OCT), and schol. to 01 ILi 5 (c). On these see Dunbabin 
310 f. 



PROLEGOMENA 21 

planned from the beginning, 1 is more easily intelligible. It was 
to eclipse Gela, and it would be strange for Gela to found a 
colony comparatively nearby greater than itself. 

This combination of evidence and argument by Dunbabin 
hangs together well. The great stumbling-block remains 
Thucydides 5 statement that Acragas was a Geloan foundation. 2 
There are, however,, two points to note in Thucydides 3 sen- 
tence: that there were two oikists and that he thought it 
necessary to say that a Geloan colony received Geloan customs. 
It is possible to explain the two oikists as being one from Rhodes 
and one from Crete, 3 but the lack of firm evidence for a Cretan 
connection with Acragas seems against this interpretation. 4 
Dunbabin's view (310) that one was Geloan and one Rhodian 5 
fits the other evidence better, and would explain Thucydides' 
slightly unexpected information about Geloan nomima. For if 
Thucydides 3 source contained the information (which he has 
not passed on) 6 that one of the oikists was Rhodian, his remark 
about the nomima becomes meaningful. 

If this view of the relations between Rhodes, Gela and 
Acragas is right, then Rhodes was dominating Gela's policy in a 
way that a truly joint metropolis could hardly hope to. It 
would be more natural to suppose that she had effectively 
ousted Crete from the position. This would explain why many 
sources refer to the Rhodian origin of Gela to the exclusion of 
Crete. Antiphemus is far more often mentioned as sole oikist 
than as sharing the honour with Entimus, 7 and Herodotus can 

1 See Dunbabin 3 1 2 f. 
f VT.4. 4 : 

srsai de syyvrara oxrd) nal exarbv (jisncd rqp cxpereQav oluiaiv rshcpoi 'AxQayavra 
wmaav, rrjv pev nofov dno rov 'Axgdyavros norajnov ovojudaavrei;, omordg 
ds noirjaavrst; "" 'AQiarovow xai nvartAov, vofjii^a ds rd Fs^cocov dovreg. 

3 As Berard suggests (236), though tentatively. 

4 Theron is said to have sent Minos' bones to Crete (Diod. IV. 79. 4), and 
Phalaris' krater dedicated to Athena Lindia bore the inscription Aaida^OQ 
sdcoxs %eiviov fjLs KoM&k&i (Lindian Chronicle XXIV), in which the name 
Daedalus suggests a Cretan connection. But these need show no more than 
a consciousness of the partially Cretan origin of Gela. 

5 As he notes, Zancle provides an analogy for such a procedure (Thuc. 
VI.4-.5). If Vallet's conjecture is accepted, Rhegium is also an example. But 
it rests merely on the two oikists recorded separately in different sources (see 
Vallet 68 nn. i and 2). 

6 Unless, as Professor Gomme suggested to me, the words </uerd 
f Podlcov> should be read before or after qvtiaav. 

7 See Berard 228 f. The inscribed base of an Attic kylix of the fifth century 



22 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

think of Gela as a purely Rhodian foundation (11.153.1). It 
therefore seems that in this mixed colony one metropolis came 
to monopolize that position. 

If we may conclude that distinctions of origin remained im- 
portant in mixed colonies and that an attempt was sometimes 
made to monopolize the position of mother city, it is reasonable 
to proceed to the further conclusion that the relations between 
colonies and mother cities were considered important from the 
beginning of the great colonizing movement. 

It is clear that the ways of reaching back beyond the fifth- 
century sources only provide very general or very occasional 
help. But their existence allows some confidence in accepting 
statements about earlier times in fifth-century sources, and 
slightly weakens the argument from silence implicit in the view 
that the idea of the relationship between colony and metropolis 
was especially effective in the fifth century. Hence an attempt 
to investigate the relations between colonies and mother cities 
in Greece is not made hopeless by the great chronological gulf 
between the foundation of most colonies and the articulate 
source material. But such an attempt is only justified if the 
problems arising from the nature of the evidence are constantly 
borne in mind. 



dedicated to Antiphemus (first published and recognized as a dedication to 
the oikist by Orsi, Not. Scav. 1900, 273 ff; photograph Annuario d. Scuola arch, 
d. Atene n.s. xi-xiii 1949-51, 108) may suggest the same thing. For he is 
mentioned alone with no distinguishing epithet (MvaaiOdhe<; dveOexe 
'Avrupdpoi) as if he were well known as sole oikist, or had a separate cult. 
The authenticity of the inscription is convincingly defended by Guarducci, 
Annuario d. scuola arch. d. Atene n.s. xxi-xxii I959~6o 3 264 fT. 



PART I 

THE ACT OF FOUNDATION 



CHAPTER II 
TRADITIONAL PRACTICES 

COLONIZATION was a regular activity in classical and pre- 
classical Greece; as we have seen, interest in it was also great 
from the time of the first sources likely to reveal this; it is not 
therefore surprising that the ideas and practices regarding the 
procedure of establishing a colony were also fixed and well- 
known. Thus Herodotus refers to the omission of these actions 
in terms which show their traditional character; 1 and Thucy- 
dides can say that the oikist for Epidamnus was summoned 
from Corcyra's mother city, Corinth, 'according to the ancient 
custom' (1.24.2). 

The antiquity of these actions and beliefs is also suggested by 
their religious character. It was the rule for the colonists to take 
with them fire from the sacred hearth (Hestia) of the mother 
city, in order to kindle with it the sacred hearth of the colony. 2 
The intention of this ritual act was clearly to make the new 
community in the deepest possible way continuous with the 
old. 

According to Herodotus (V.42.2) it was also obligatory to 
consult the oracle at Delphi before undertaking a colonial 
expedition. 3 If this was so from the earliest times it is unlikely 

1 Herodotus (V.42.2) only specifies Dorieus' failure to consult Delphi. It 
is a pity that he did not give details of the other traditional practices which 
he says Dorieus omitted. 

2 Though the precise statement of this is in a late compilation (Etym. 
Magn. s.v. nQVTavsla), Herodotus seems to refer to the practice (1.146.2). 

3 It has been maintained that Delphi did not become an international 
centre until some date after the beginning of the colonizing movement, and 
only influenced colonization c a partir du VI e siecle'; see J. Defradas, Thames 
de la propagandie delphique (Paris 1954) 233 f. This would require the rejection 
of all the traditions of Delphi's part in the colonization of the eighth and 
seventh centuries, especially that of Sicily and Magna Graecia. Desborough, 
Protogeometric Pottery 304, believes that the pottery finds at Delphi show that 
it was an international sanctuary in the ninth century. This is not the view 
of W. G. Forrest, 'Colonization and the Rise of Delphi 5 , Historia vi 1957, 
1 60 ff; he does not think it attained this character before the later eighth 
century. Though his arguments rest too much on fargoing reconstructions 

25 



26 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

that it was originally an application for practical advice. 1 It is 
true that the oracle may have built up a useful store of geo- 
graphical knowledge and may thus have led colonists to areas 
not yet occupied by Greeks, or advised against ill-chosen sites. 
Good examples of this would be Gyrene and Taras. 2 But, as 
most of the oracles we possess are probably forgeries, 3 we can 
hardly be certain that the oracle gave such practical advice in 
the early period. It was probably rather a matter of obtaining 
the god's sanction. The foundation of a city was a sacred act, 
sacred enough to be performed by a god. Apart from the cities 
of Greece proper, like Athens, many colonies claimed Apollo as 
their oikist, 4 and mortals who performed this act were wor- 
shipped as heroes after their death. As a home of gods as well 
as men, a Greek city could not be founded without the sanction 
of the gods. 5 The recourse to Delphi seems also to show that the 
colonists realized that they were extending the human and 
divine community not only of their own city, but of the Greeks 
in general. This is the way to understand Thucydides' informa- 
tion (1,3.1) that the altar of Apollo Archegetes at Naxos was 
especially sacred, so that all Sicilian Greeks going to the great 
Panhellenic festivals sacrificed on it first before their departure. 
This was the first place where the worship of the Greek gods 
had been established in the new country. 

It seems probable that through this constant connection with 
colonial expeditions Delphi acquired the position of arbiter in 
colonial matters. Various examples, inevitably comparatively 
late in date, suggest that specifically colonial matters were re- 
ferred to the oracle for judgment. When the people of Thurii 
were divided as to who was their oikist, they sent to Delphi for 
the answer, and the god himself assumed the role. 6 Epidamnus, 



concerning the Lelantine War and too easy acceptance of early oracles, 
Forrest is surely right to see that the participation of Delphi in the early 
colonization attested by the tradition should not be denied. 

1 As it is in Hdt. V.42.2. 

2 See Hdt. IV. 150-8, and Parke and Wormell, A History of the Delphic 
Oracle 1. 71 ff. This work contains a good survey of the oracle's part in 
colonization, 1.49-81. 

8 This was convincingly shown by A. S. Pease, CP v 1917, 1-20. 

4 The instances were collected by S. Lampros, De conditorum coloniamm 
graecarum indole, praemiisque et honoribits, diss. Leipzig 1873, 8-20. 

5 As stressed by Parke and Wormell, 49 f. 

6 Diod. XII.35.2. 



TRADITIONAL PRACTICES 2J 

desiring to transfer itself from its metropolis, Corcyra, to 
Corinth, also asked Delphi for advice. 1 Thasos' relations with 
her colonies seem to have been adjusted under the guidance of 
Delphi, 2 If the oracle did discharge this function, it may have 
been partly responsible for any regularity that can be found in 
Greek ideas on these subjects. 

As we have seen, Thucydides states (1.24.2) that it was the 
ancient custom when a colony itself founded a colony to sum- 
mon the oikist from its mother city. It is characteristic of our 
scanty knowledge of these practices that we only hear of this 
from Thucydides, and that he provides our only definite 
examples, Epidamnus and Selinus. 3 But there is no reason to 
doubt his statement. The practice is a further indication of the 
desire in early times to represent even colonies at one remove as 
continuations of the original community. 

Other more narrowly political practices are mentioned or 
implied by decrees arranging colonial enterprises, which must 
be examined separately. But it is worth noting that there is a 
little evidence to suggest that the colonists made an agreement 
on oath with the community they were leaving. The decree of 
Thera arranging for the foundation of Gyrene, which is pre- 
served in a fourth-century Cyrenean inscription, 4 is followed by 
the information that those leaving and those staying behind 
swore to keep the agreement they had made, and a picturesque 
and primitive ceremonial of curses against transgressors is also 
described. 5 With this may be compared Herodotus' information 
regarding the Phoenicians (111.19.2) that they refused to sail 
against their colonists the Carthaginians on the grounds that 
they were bound by great oaths. This is not a Greek colony but 
as it is a Greek historian his testimony may perhaps be set beside 

1 Thuc. 1.25.1. 

2 See Pouilloux, Recherches sur rhistoire et les cultes de Thasos I (Paris 1954) 
181 ff, especially 183. 

3 Thuc. VI.4.2. 

4 SEG IX.3. The question whether this document represents the original 
seventh-century Theraean decree is very complicated. I have treated it 
elsewhere (JHS Ixxx 1960, 94 ff) and tried to show that what we probably 
have is the seventh-century document edited for re-publication in the 
fourth. The matter in it may be taken as authentic, if some of the wording 
may not. 

5 40 ff. Dr. Kathleen Forbes, who has written a thesis on the dialect of 
Gyrene, has informed me (by letter) that she considers these curses to be the 
latter part of the original oath sworn by the colonists. 



28 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

the evidence from Thera. Such agreements on oath may well 
have preceded the more formal decrees arranging foundations, 
and show the aspirations of founders and colonists to keep some 
permanent relationship between the new and old communities. 



CHAPTER III 
THE ROLE OF THE OIKIST 



evQsv avaar^cfaQ dye Navaffloog 

slaev ds S^eqLri, sxdg avdQ&v 

djuipl ds rsi%og sAacrae n6hsi, KOI edeifjiaro oixovg, 

nal vrjovg noLtjaB Osa>v, %al eddcr&aT* dgovQag. * 

Homer, Od. vi. 7-11. 

EVIDENCE for the oikist 5 s activities in the early period is un- 
fortunately very meagre, and even in later times we know 
less of his duties than of the honours paid him. 2 The most 
important of these was his worship as a hero after his death, 3 
which shows that the foundation of a colony was thought of in 
terms which we should call religious. However, practical duties 
may easily be inferred. Homer provides a minimum list in the 
lines quoted above 4 and the account of the foundation of 
Gyrene in Herodotus offers further evidence. 

The oikist Battus was pointed out to Delphic Apollo by the 
king of Thera (IV. 150.3) and he was chosen by the state (153), 
as is also stated in the Theraean foundation decree. 5 He then led 
the expedition (156.2), ruled as king for about forty years 
(159.1), and established his family as a dynasty (163.2 e.g.). 
In ruling as king Battus may have been exceptional, but the 
early oikists certainly went as participants in the new com- 
munity; for the sacrifices and rites paid to them clearly grew 
up round their tombs, which were situated in distinguished 
places in the colony. 6 Herodotus' remarks on Dorieus (V.42.2) 

1 'Godlike Nausithous made them arise from there and led them away 
and settled them in Scheria, far from mortal men who live by gain. He sur- 
rounded the city with a wall, built houses, made temples of the gods and 
divided the land.' 

2 They are listed in detail by Lampros, op. cit. 

3 A pleasing memorial of such cults is the fragment of a fifth-century 
Attic kylix dedicated to Antiphemus, oikist of Gela; see above p. 21 n. 7. 

4 The close connection between the Odyssey and colonization is stressed 
by Schaefer in his article 'Eigenart und Wesenziige der griechischen 
Kolonisation', Heidelberger Jahrbiicher 1960, p. 77. 

5 See above p. 127 n. 4. 

6 E.g. those of Battus, Find, Pyth. V.i24f and schol., and of Brasidas, 
Thuc. V.i i.i. For the rites attached to them see Thuc. ibid; Hdt. VI. 38.1 

29 



30 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

suggest that the oikist was expected to manage everything from 
consulting the Delphic oracle onwards. We need not doubt that 
in such early colonies the oikist was generally an independent 
leader, and would satisfy both colony and metropolis by carry- 
ing out the general conditions laid down for the settlement 1 and 
especially by performing the right ritual acts in establishing the 
new polis. 

From the early period there is no sure example of an oikist 
who was intended by the metropolis to further its imperial or 
commercial policies. 2 The first oikists who may be confidently 
regarded as chosen in order to maintain a political link with the 
metropolis were the sons of tyrants. In Corinth's striking 
colonial activity under Cypselus and Periander the rule seems 
to have been for the sons of tyrants to serve as oikists of the new 
settlements. We are told that the oikists of Ambracia, Leucas 
and Anactorium were sons of Cypselus, 8 and the oikist of Poti- 
daea was Euagoras, son of Periander. 4 The effect of this family 
relationship was presumably never legally defined, but the 
leaders of the colonies were members of the ruling house in the 
mother city. 5 That this created a political link is suggested by 
the events on Corcyra in Periander's reign. 

It is clear from the foundation of Epidamnus in 627 (Euse- 

(of Miltiades, oikist of the Chersonese). For the importance of the tombs of 
heroes in general see, e.g. W. K. G. Guthrie, The Greeks and their Gods 
(London 1950) 232-5. 

1 As in the foundation decree for Gyrene, to be discussed in the following 
chapter. 

2 Such a role has been attributed to Archias and Chersicrates, oikists of 
Syracuse and Corcyra, in the eighth century, but, as I try to show in 
Appendix I below, this hypothesis is not convincing. 

3 Ambracia: Ps-Scymnus 435 f, Strabo X.452; Leucas: Strabo loc. cit., 
who attributes its foundation to the same expedition, led by Gorgos, son of 
Cypselus, which was responsible for Ambracia; but Nic. Dam. frg. 57.7, 
FGH IIA p. 357, names Echiades, son of Cypselus, as oikist; Anactorium: 
Strabo loc. cit., though the oikist given by Nic. Dam., loc. cit., is Pylades, 
son of Cypselus. 

4 Nic. Dam. frg. 59, FGH IIA p. 358. 

5 To make the tyrant something almost separate from the city he ruled 
seems a mistake. This is done by Berve in his Miltiades, Hermes, Einzel- 
schriften II, 1937; cf. the criticisms of his thesis by Bengtson, 'Einzelperson- 
lichkeit und athenischer Staat', Site. Bayr. Akad. 1939, 7~ 6 7? and by Ehren- 
berg, 'Early Athenian Colonies', in Aspects of the Ancient World (Oxford 1946) 
1 16-43. Will seems to make the same mistake, when he asks if the family con- 
nection could turn into a civic connection after the fall of the tyranny; see 
La Nouvelle Clio vi, 1954, 4*8. 



THE ROLE OF THE OIKIST 3! 

bius) that Corcyra was then independent of Corinth. For though 
she behaved correctly in inviting a Corinthian oikist and even 
invited Corinthian settlers, 1 the colony was always recognized 
as Corcyrean. The other colonies in which both Corinth and 
Corcyra were involved were never known as purely Corcyrean. 2 
If, however, Corcyra was then independent but on friendly 
terms with her mother city, 3 under Periander she was hostile 
and became dependent. The story as told in Herodotus and 
Nicolaus Damascenus is not entirely clear in detail. 4 According 
to Nicolaus Damascenus Periander's son was merely living on 
Corcyra 5 when he was killed by the Corcyreans, though the 
description may conceal his real power. However this may be, 
in revenge for his death Periander conquered the island, and 
made his nephew its ruler. 6 Thus conquered territory was put 
under the rule of a member of the tyrant's family. This suggests 
that it is right to infer some measure of control by the metro- 
polis over colonies founded under the leadership of tyrants' sons. 
Although the choice of oikists suggests that this colonization 
was of an imperial nature, it has sometimes been thought to 
represent only family aggrandizement. 7 That this is to draw too 
definite a line between the tyrant and the community he ruled 
is, however, proved by the subsequent relations between these 
colonies and the mother city, which will be treated later. For 
these too were close and show some dependence. If the colonies 
were merely private possessions of the tyrant house the con- 
nection should have died with the last tyrant. 

1 Thuc. 1.24.2. 

2 They were Leucas, Anactorium and Apollonia in Illyria. Leucas may 
be inferred to have been a joint foundation from Plut. Them. XXIV. For 
Anactorium see Thuc. 1.55.1; for Apollonia in Illyria Ps-Scymnus 439, 
Strabo VII. 31 6. As the sources concentrate on the Corinthian connection 
in these colonies, Beaumont's suggestion (JHSlvi, 1936, 166) that the Cor- 
inthians were strong enough to force the Corcyreans to let them participate 
in the colonization of Epidamnus seems unlikely. If this had been so it seems 
difficult to believe that Epidamnus would have been a Corcyrean colony; 
at best it would have been a joint foundation of Corinth and Corcyra. 

3 Wade-Gery's conjecture (CAH 111.550 ff) that Corinth and Corcyra 
may have clashed in two contemporary battles in the North West seems 
improbable in view of the behaviour of Corcyra at the foundation of 
Epidamnus and of Cypselus' pacific nature, which Wade-Gery notes. 

4 Hdt. 111.52 f; Nic. Dam. frg. 59, FGH IIAp. 358. They differ on the 
son's name. 

5 diaiTcbfzsvov nagd Gcpiaiv. 

6 Hdt. 111.49 ff; Nic. Dam. loc. cit. 7 See above p. 30 n. 5. 



32 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

The Athenian colony of Sigeum. 1 was likewise placed by 
Peisistratus under the control of his son Hegesistratus in about 
530 B.C. 2 From that time until the expulsion of Hippias we may 
assume that it was in a dependent position similar to that of the 
Corinthian colonies. Sigeum lies near the south side of the Hel- 
lespont. On the north is the Thracian Chersonese. To this 
Miltiades the Elder had brought an Athenian colony at an 
earlier date, probably between 561 and 556 B.C., 3 and between 
524 and 513 B.C. the younger Miltiades was sent out to rule it 
by the Peisistratids. 4 

It seems entirely reasonable to see the recolonization of 
Sigeum, the sending of Miltiades the Younger to the Cher- 
sonese and his later colonization of Lemnos 5 as parts of a single 

1 Herodotus' account (V-94f) seems to mean that there was an Athenian 
colony planted at Sigeum at the end of the seventh century, which was 
recolonized by Peisistratus. This is the interpretation of Berve, op. cit. 
(26-8), accepted by Bengtson, op. cit. (120) and Ehrenberg, op. cit. (117). 
Will interprets Herodotus* account as telling of only one war, under 
Peisistratus; see La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 422, Rev. de Phil, xxv, 1951, 178-81, 
and Korinthiaka, 381-91. But this interpretation of Herodotus and what 
follows from it seem very doubtful. For a convincing defence of the view 
that Herodotus is telling of a series of wars see Page, Sappho and Alcaeus 
(Oxford 1955) 152-8. Beattie misunderstands Page in his review (JHS 
Ixxvii (pt. II) 1957, 322). The Herodotean ending 'and thus Sigeum came 
under Athenian control' does not imply that there were two accounts of the 
way in which this had happened; it is merely the conclusion of the whole 
story. Will's interpretation is part of his view of Gypselid chronology, in 
which he follows Beloch (1.2.274 ^) m drastically lowering the traditional 
dates. See below, p. 1 18 n. 4. 

2 Hdt. .94.1. For the date Berve's calculation (28) from the probable age 
of Hegesistratus seems acceptable. 

3 See Hdt. VI.34 ff; Marcellinus, Vita Thuc. 5 ff. See Berve, 8. The 
terminus ante quern is 546 when Croesus lost his empire, for Croesus saved 
Miltiades when he was captured in his war against Lampsacus. Wade-Gery 
(JHS Ixxi 1951? 219 n. 38) would accept a lower date for the fall of Sardis, 
namely 544, based on interpretations of Herodotus. In this case the definite 
terminus ante quern is lowered by two years, and Miltiades could just have left 
Athens after the battle of Pallene in 546. But the events have to be crowded 
to fit this time-scale, and the arguments for the lower date are a little 
tenuous, even if the date in the Babylonian Chronicle (546) is also uncertain, 
as Wade-Gery (loc. cit.) maintains. Lydian chronology is treated in full by 
H. Kaletsch, Histona vii 1958, i ff, who arrives at the date 547/6 for the 
fall of Sardis after an exhaustive study of Greek chronographers and the 
Babylonian Chronicle; see 39-44. 

4 Hdt. VI. 39. i. For the date see Berve 40 n. i; Bengtson 28 n. r. 

5 See Hdt. VI. 140; Diod. X.ig.6; Zenobius, Prov. 111.85, Paroem. Graed 
ed. Gaisford (Oxford 1836), p. 288. 



THE ROLE OF THE OIKIST 33 

Athenian policy aimed at controlling the straits. 1 But it is un- 
likely that the first colonization of Sigeum by Phrynon at the 
end of the seventh century 2 was already directed to this end, as 
has been argued, 3 for at that time Athens was unable to hold 
Salamis. 4 Thus Phrynon 3 s settlement at Sigeum is best seen as 
an independent colony. 5 Miltiades 3 expedition to the Cher- 
sonese is more difficult to judge, but it certainly left Athens at 
some date before Peisistratus was firmly in power, 6 and it there- 
fore seems more likely that the great noble Miltiades was acting 
independently, 7 than that Peisistratus was already directing 
ambitious foreign policies. 

Thus both at Corinth and at Athens tyrants used colonies 
for imperial ends, choosing for the purpose oikists closely 

1 This is the view of Bengtson and Ehrenberg, op. cit. They oppose 
Berve's view (op. cit.) that this colonization represents the quest for power 
by private individuals. 

2 The date is established by the Eusebian dates for the oikist, Phrynon; 
see R.E. s.v. 

3 As by Bengtson, 2 1 ; but the arguments are slight. They rest on Strabo's 
wording (XIII. 599), ^AOrjva'ioi 0Qvva>va TOV *OAvju,movMr]v ns^avrsg > and the 
description of Phrynon in the Suda (s.v. UirraKOQ) as the strategos of the 
Athenians. The wording of these late sources should not be pressed to show 
the nature of the undertaking. An example of the dangers of such a proce- 
dure is provided by Will, La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 453 f, who uses the words 
of the Suda to show that the colonists remained citizens of the metropolis: 
'that is why the Sigeans are called Athenians*. But what else would the 
Athenian settlers led by Phrynon be called? 

4 Gf. Solon frg. 2 and Berve, 28. 

5 In ATL III it is suggested (289 n. 75) that Elaious in the Chersonese 
was colonized by Phrynon in the late seventh century. This is arrived at by 
emending <og/?oco v (sic) of the MSS. of Ps-Scymnus (708) to 0Qijva)v. In that 
case Phrynon's colonization of Sigeum would look like part of an attempt to 
control both sides of the straits. But until we have something which can be 
truly called evidence it seems safer to argue from the circumstances of the 
time. 

6 Even if one accepts Wade-Gery's rather unlikely suggestion that Mil- 
tiades could have left after Pallene, Peisistratus was hardly firmly in control 
so soon. 

7 The ancient evidence could perhaps be interpreted either way. Both 
Herodotus' and Marcellinus 5 words (see above p. 32 n. 3) point strongly to 
a private act. But those who argue that it was a 'political not a private enter- 
prise' (Ehrenberg, 120) concentrate attention on Herodotus 5 remark that 
Peisistratus had TO nav XQWCOS, which is interpreted as implying that it was a 
state enterprise, finally emanating from Peisistratus. Berve's arguments for 
the view that the enterprise was private from the suggested enmity between 
Philaids and Peisistratids are rightly shown by Bengtson (8 ff)_ to be of small 
importance. But Bengtson's own arguments for the opposite conclusion 
(10 ff) are all open to objection. 



34 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

connected with themselves. Sigeum's connection with the mother 
city depended more on the tyrant, it seems, than that of the 
Corinthian colonies. For Hippias was able to retire to Sigeum 
on his ejection from Athens, 1 and we shall see that subse- 
quently Sigeum does not appear to have been a dependent 
colony. 

In four colonies of the fifth century, three Athenian, Brea, 
Thurii and Amphipolis, and one Spartan, Heraclea in Trachis, 
the role of the oikist is even more clearly dictated by the policy 
of the metropolis. 

The decree concerning the foundation of Brea 2 shows how the 
Athenians arranged for the settlement of a colony at the height 
of their power. We have no other knowledge of the colony, 3 but 
the nature of the foundation is clear from the decree. Founded 
within the context of the Athenian empire, it was intended to be 
a bulwark in the important Thraceward region, as we may see 
from the arrangements for the colony's defence (13-16). It is 
provided that, if the land of the colonists is attacked, the cities 
(rag jtoAeic;} must come to its aid as quickly as possible, accord- 
ing to the treaty made at an earlier date concerning the cities of 
the Thraceward region. The term rag noheu; seems likely to 
refer to those of the Thraceward region mentioned immediately 
afterwards, and Aristophanes' usage shows that c the cities' could 
mean the allies, 4 so that this provision seems to show that the 
Athenians had agreed with the allies in the Thraceward region 



2 Tod 44; the decree is discussed further in the next chapter, and trans- 
lated in Appendix II. 

3 A recent discussion is that of Woodhead, CQ,n.s. ii 1952, 57-62. The 
choice of date is restricted to 445/4 or 440/38 by the character of tlie writing 
and the information that an Athenian army is in the field (26-9) ; but the 
arguments in favour of either are not sufficient to exclude the possibility of 
the other (see Busolt 111.417, who favours the earlier date, and Woodhead, 
60 ff, who prefers the later). As for the site, Woodhead's suggestion (57-9) 
that BQSO.V be read instead of BsQoiav in Thuc. 1.61.4 would put it in N.W. 
Ghalcidice, but Edson convincingly defends the correctness of the reading 
Bsgoiav (CP 1 1955, 169-90, especially I76f). However, the general con- 
clusion that it lay in the Thraceward region follows from 11.13 & The lack 
of any subsequent history is possibly to be explained by its absorption in 
other Athenian settlements in the area (see Nesselhauf, Klio, Beihcft xxx 
J 933j I 3 ff> wn suggests Amphipolis, and Woodhead, 62, who argues for 
Potidaea) ; or by its forcible inclusion in Olynthus after the Athenian defeat 
at Spartolus (as Woodhead, ibid.). 

4 See Hugill, Panhellenism in Aristophanes, 67. 



THE ROLE OF THE OIKIST 35 

to found a colony, and bound these allies to support it in case of 
need. 

The position of the oikist Democlides should therefore be 
considered in the light of the colony's clearly imperial char- 
acter. Though it is expressly decreed (8 f ) that he shall have full 
powers (avTo]xedroQa) to establish the colony, there are various 
indications in the decree of limitations on his authority. For 
one thing the state decides details beforehand, who shall be 
eligible to sail (40 f), and when the expedition shall depart 
(29 f), and it chooses the officials (ys&vofloi} to divide the land 
(6 f). But the greatest encroachment is the presence of ten 
an[oixiomi (s). 1 Tod (p. 89) describes these as 'apparently the 
adjutants of the omcnr^g', and compares the ten men sent to 
Thurii to found it (Schol. Arist. Clouds 332). If they have this 
character, as seems likely, Democlides was not an independent 
autocrat. 

Furthermore, if he is identified with the Democlides who pro- 
posed a later Athenian decree, 2 then he returned to Athens and 
did not live with the community he had founded. This is uncer- 
tain; the colony may have failed and this have been the reason 
for his return; or the identification may be wrong. But as he is 
clearly an Athenian state official carrying out fairly detailed 
instructions of the Athenian demos, it would not be surprising 
if he returned on the completion of his temporary task, as did 
the oikists of Thurii, Amphipolis and, probably, Heraclea in 
Trachis. 

The Athenian aims in the foundation of Thurii are perhaps 
not so clear-cut. For Thurii was a refoundation of an ancient 
Greek city, and also it was not a purely Athenian colony. 3 
However, one can recognize the Panhellenic nature of the 

1 This restoration appears to be generally accepted, though Tod himself 
(p. 89) states that the word does not occur elsewhere. Liddell and Scott, 
however, refer to Menander Rhetor, p. 356 in Spengel's edition Rhet. Grace. 
(Teubner) III, where the word has a quite general sense of 'founders'. 

2 LG. P. 1 52. Ever since Pittakis first published this inscription ( 9 E</>. 
1860, no. 3806) editors have suggested that he might be the same man as 
the oikist of Brea, though Kirchner does not follow them (PA 3474 f )- T d 
(p. 88) goes so far as to say the identification is probable. Meanwhile Wade- 
Gery conjectures (CP xxvi 1931, 313) Aeju,[oxfaids<; on the fragment he 
publishes there belonging to LG. P-5O. But his argument 'not many names 
fit' is admittedly very slight. This inscription refers to the peace with Samos 
of 440/39. 

3 The main account of the foundation is Diod. XII. 10 f. 



36 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

foundation without denying that the colony was also designed 
to further Athens' own aims. 1 Athens' interests in the West at 
this period are revealed by her treaties with Leontini and 
Rhegium 2 and the important Athenian participation in the 
foundation of Neapolis (Naples). 3 The Athenians also tried to 
provide for these interests in the act of founding Thurii, within 
the limits prescribed by the special circumstances of the 
settlement. 

The oikist(s) and leading men in the expedition were 
Athenians, 4 and the Athenians sent the largest group of settlers. 5 
The constitution was a democracy 6 and there were ten tribes. 7 
It seems overcautious not to conclude from this that the con- 
stitutional arrangements had Athenian models, even though the 
Solonian code was not adopted. 8 In the arrangement of the 
tribes 9 the only tribe deriving from a single city was the 
Athenais from Athens. Thus in the establishment of this osten- 
sibly Panhellenic colony the Athenians established a constitu- 
tion likely to be pro-Athenian 10 and an Athenian tribe likely to 
provide an organized pro-Athenian core. 

As at Brea, the oikist Lampon 11 seems to have been a state 
official performing a temporary task. The unimportance of his 
role is shown by the fact that he is only mentioned as sole oikist 
in one source; 12 Diodorus (XII. 10.4) associates him in the task 
with Xenocritus, and Photius mentions, 13 besides these two, 
three others to whom the foundation had been attributed. In 
434/3, a bare ten years after the foundation, 14 an argument arose 

1 This has been convincingly stated by Ehrenberg, AJP Ixix 1948, 
149 if, so the arguments need not be repeated. He refutes Wade-Gery's far- 
going thesis that the colony was established by Thucydides, son of Melesias, 
as a sincerely Panhellenic venture (JHS Hi 1932, 217-19). 

2 Tod 57; 58. * See B6rard, 58 ff. 

4 See Ehrenberg, 164 ff, for details. 5 Diod. XII.35.I f. 

6 Diod. XII. u . 2 f; Arist. Pol, i3O7a. 7 Diod. loc. cit. 

8 Diod. XII. 1 1. 4 ff. 9 Diod. XII. 11.3. 

10 See Thuc. 111.47.2; cf. A. H. M. Jones, Athenian Democracy (Oxford 
*957) 6? ff> an d Sainte-Groix, Historia iii 1954, 1-41. 

11 We may accept Lampon as the oikist, however small his powers and 
shortlived his honour, as he appears more consistently than anyone else in 
the sources; cf. Ehrenberg, 164. 

12 Plut. Praec. reip. ger. 823 D. 13 s.v. BovQio^avrsiQ. 

14 Ehrenberg, 157, explains the two traditions about the date of Thurii's 
foundation in a way that seems acceptable: 446/5 foundation of the third 
Sybaris, 444/3 foundation of Thurii. This is neatly confirmed by the coins; 
see Ehrenberg, 152. 



THE ROLE OF THE OIKIST 37 

as to who should count as oikist. 1 This was caused by political 
motives, but if the matter was arguable^ the oikist cannot have 
been a monarchic leader and a hero. The ten men sent to found 
the colony, 2 whom, as we have seen, Tod regards as correspond- 
ing to the moimatai of the Brea decree, 3 represent a sharing 
and thus a lessening of the oikist' s powers. 

Furthermore, Lampon did not live and exercise citizenship in 
the community he had helped to establish, but kept his Athenian 
citizenship, returned to Athens, and played an important role in 
public life there. He is the first Athenian signatory at the Peace 
of Nicias and at the Spartan/Athenian alliance of the same 
year, 4 and Aristophanes makes fun of him in the Birds (521, 
988). Though we cannot say when he returned to Athens, it 
seems unlikely that he was still in the colony when the dispute 
about the oikist arose in 434/3. 

Hagnon's role in the foundation of Amphipolis seems to have 
been closely alike. The Athenian aims in this foundation were to 
establish a strong point of Athenian power in the Thraceward 
region, able to exploit the natural resources of the immediate 
area, and to protect the Athenian allies of the district. 5 Hence 
the expedition's size, 6 hence Thucydides' exile for allowing 
Brasidas to capture the city, 7 and hence its special position in the 
Peace of Nicias, 8 not to mention later attempts to regain the city. 9 

Of the act of foundation we know only that it was an official 
venture 10 under the leadership of Hagnon and that a democratic 
constitution was established, 11 The choice of Hagnon shows the 
importance of the undertaking to Athens. He was a leading 

I Diod. XII.35.2. 2 Schol. Arist. Clouds 332. 

3 This seems preferable to identifying them with the ys&vofjioi of the same 
decree, as Pappritz, Thurii (Diss. Berlin 1891) 20, as these would be less 
likely to be mentioned virtually as founders. 

4 Thuc. .19.2; 24.1. 5 Thuc. IV. 108.1. 

6 The abortive expedition of 465/4 (for date see Thuc. IV. 102. 2 with 
Diod. XII.32.3; cf. Gomme 1.390 f) had 10,000 settlers (Thuc. 1.100.3; 
I V.i 02. 2). Since the aims and requirements were similar in the successful 
expedition it can hardly have been smaller. 

7 Thuc. V.26.3; Marcellinus Vita Thuc. 23. 8 Thuc. V.i8.5. 

9 Thuc. V.83 f; VII. 9, not to go beyond the fifth century. 

10 The wording of Thucydides in describing the foundation (IV. 102. 2), in 
which the subject of the sentence is ol 9 A6i]vcuoi, puts this beyond doubt. 

II This seems a reasonable conclusion from the passages IV. 104.4; 105.1. 
In the first the pro-Athenian party convince ra> nMjOei,, in the second 
Brasidas is worried because the nAfjOog T&V* AfjicpmoUtcDvi^not coming over to 
him. Both suggest that the people had political power. 



38 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

figure at Athens, especially in the military field, 1 both before 
and after the foundation of Amphipolis. At Amphipolis he 
named the city 2 and was honoured as founder until the title of 
oikist was transferred to Brasidas. 3 On the other hand his early 
return to Athens, at the latest in time to be strategos in 430/29,* 
shows that his task was probably confined to the preliminaries 
of the settlement; again it was temporary state employment for 
an Athenian citizen. This explains too how the colonists could 
deprive him of the position of oikist. These examples show the 
status of the oikist in Athenian imperial foundations of the fifth 
century. 5 

The Spartan colony of Heraclea in Trachis, settled in 426, 
was closely connected with their war aims. Thucydides tells us 
(111.92.4) that it was considered a suitable place for preparing 
a naval descent on Euboea and the journey to Thrace, It was a 
large, 7 mixed settlement, and was established by three Spartan 
oikists: Leon, Alcidas and Damagon. 8 Of the last-named we 
know nothing further. Alcidas played a considerable if ignoble 
role in the earlier part of the war; he was admiral of the Spartan 
fleet that failed to help Mytilene, and commander of unsuccess- 
ful expeditions in the north-western theatre. 9 Leon was one of 
the Spartan ambassadors sent to Athens about the Athenian/ 
Argive alliance, and held the office of eponymous ephor at 
Sparta in 419/18; in 41 1 he took over command at Chios. 10 So 

1 Gf. Thuc. I.i 17.2, Hagnon's part in the reduction of Samos; 11.58. i, his 
generalship at Potidaea. 

2 Thuc. IV. 102.3. 3 Thuc. V.n.i. 4 Thuc. 11.58.1. 

5 A similar status, of temporary state servants, should probably be 
attributed to the Athenian oikists sent to settle Notion, especially as it was 
not a settlement of Athenians at all; see Thuc. 111.34.4. 

6 The settlement is related by Thucydides, III.g2 f; cf. Diod. XII.59.5. 

7 Diodorus 5 figure (loc. cit.) of 10,000 may be too round, and Schaefer 
shows why it is unlikely to be correct (Historia x 1961, 292), but the passage 
Thuc. 111.93.2 shows the size of the settlement, 

8 Thuc. 111.92.5. 9 See Thuc. III. 16.3; 26.1; 69.1 f; 76. 

10 See Thuc. .44.3; Xen. Hell. II.iii.io; Thuc. VIII.6i.2. This depends 
on accepting Poralla's suggestion (Prosopographie der Lakedaimonier bis auf die 
eit Alexanders des Grossen (Breslau 1913) 83 f) that the various Leons we 
meet at this time were one and the same man. Thucydides 3 four references 
to the Spartan Leon contain on only one occasion any delimiting word 
(SnaQrtdrris, VIII.Gi.a; the others are 111.92.5; .44.3; VIII.28.5), which 
seems to mean that there was only one Leon to whom he could be referring. 
Poralla has shown that chronological considerations fit this thesis perfectly 
well. 



THE ROLE OF THE OIKIST 39 

Leon at least returned to public life at Sparta after founding 
Heraclea. That none of the oikists stayed to govern the colony 
seems probable from the fact that the Spartan Xenares is de- 
scribed as the Heracleot governor, agxcov avr&v, in 420, l and 
when the Boeotians took control of the place immediately after- 
wards, the Spartan expelled for misgovernment was Hagesip- 
pidas. 2 So it seems that in this foundation clearly designed to 
further the strategic aims of the mother city the oikists were 
carrying out a temporary state task as Spartan citizens. 

The evidence on the oikist's role discussed here is admittedly 
limited; we know of few in any detail even in the later period 
and in the earlier only general inferences are possible. For all 
that, the marked change or development in the role which has 
been illustrated has probably general validity and mirrors a 
general development in Greek ideas about colonies over this 
long period. In the earlier colonies the oikists seem to have been 
all-responsible, even monarchical; in the dependent colonies of 
the tyrants the oikists chosen are closely attached to the ruler of 
the metropolis; in the imperial colonies of the fifth century the 
oikist is no longer even a participant in the new community. 
Other factors no doubt played a part in changing the role of the 
oikist. In Athenian colonies with democratic constitutions, for 
instance, a monarchical oikist would be an impossible anachron- 
ism. But in general the changing role of the oikist reflects the 
increasing dependence of the colony, or the increasing inter- 
ference of the mother city. 

1 Thuc. .51.2. 2 Thuc. ,52,1. 



CHAPTER IV 
FOUNDATION DECREES 

THE arrangements made by a mother city for the foundation 
of a Greek colony were, sometimes at least, set down in 
writing. Timaeus claimed to have seen such a decree in Locris, 
referring to Epizephyrian Locri, which began c as parents to 
children' (c6c yovsvai n^oQ tfywa), 1 and the Theban claim to rule 
Plataea seems to have been based on a decree of this sort, 
whether or not it had, in fact, existed. 2 Moreover, Hyperides 
even used the word apoikia for such provisions (ra yqa^ara 
xaO* a aitoiKovGiTW8<;). z 

Some of these documents have, at least in part, come down 
to us. Three are particularly important: the foundation decrees 
for Gyrene, 4 for a settlement of Hypocnemidian Locrians at 
Naupactus, 5 and for Brea. 6 There is also an inscription arrang- 
ing a colonial settlement on Black Corcyra, 7 but this evidently 
contains only part of the arrangements for the colony. 8 Another 
inscription (IG I 2 46) is concerned with the foundation of a 
colony, but is unfortunately too fragmentary to yield any in- 
formation of value. A foundation decree is also presupposed by 
an inscription concerning the despatch of an Athenian colony 
to the Adriatic (Tod 200), but the inscription itself is only a 
record of equipment taken over by the oikist. 

These decrees, the first three of which will provide most of the 
material for this chapter, sometimes arrange directly for the 
relations that the colony and mother city intended to maintain, 
and thus provide primary evidence for Greek ideas and prac- 
tices in this field. Even when they do not, they can throw light 

1 See Polyb. Xll.g. Polybius' disbelief does not seem very well founded. 

2 See Thuc. III.6i.2. 3 See Harpocration s.v. cforom'a. 

4 SEG IX. 3; see above p. 27 n. 4. For translations of these foundation 
decrees see Appendix II below. 

5 Tod 24. 6 Tod 44. 7 Syll* 141. 

8 As was recognized long since; see Wilhelm, Neue Beitrdge zur griech. 
Inschriftenkunde HI (Site. Wien. Akad*> Phil. Hist. Klasse, 175, 1913-14) 16, 
and Brunsmid, Die Inschriften und Miinzen der griechischen StadU Dalmatiens 
(Ab.d. Arch. Epig. Seminares d. Univ. Wien 1894) 14. 

40 



FOUNDATION DECREES 4! 

on such relations indirectly. The information from them must, 
however, be considered in relation to their date and historical 
circumstances. Brea and Naupactus are settlements of the fifth 
century, 1 and the actual inscription regarding Gyrene is of the 
fourth. However, the matter of the decree preserved in this 
inscription is probably authentic 2 even if the wording is not, 
so that in this one instance we have the substance of a founda- 
tion decree from the seventh century. 

The circumstances of Gyrene's foundation are well known. 
Herodotus' account shows that the colony was a simple colony 
of need. 3 It was sent out in time of famine at Thera (IV.isi.i) 
to reduce the population. In all its provisions the decree suits 
these circumstances. It has compulsory enlistment (28 f), severe 
limitations on the right to return (32 ff), and fierce threats 
against defaulters (37 ff). It is fortunate that one of the three 
decrees refers to a colony of the most usual Greek type, a new 
place to live for people grown too many for the land of the 
mother city to support. 

There is no direct literary reference to the settlement at 
Naupactus, Its historical setting must therefore be conjectured, 
and the starting-point for such conjecture is the fact that 'the 
character of the writing forbids our assigning the law ... to 
a date later than the close of the Peloponnesian War'. 4 Tod 
therefore dates the inscription to about 46o, 5 since Naupactus 
was held by Messenians under the protection of Athens from 
about that time till 404. The second important factor to be 
remembered is that Naupactus was a considerable city of 

1 On the date of Brea see above p. 43 n. 3. On that of the colony at 
Naupactus see the discussion below. 

2 As I have tried to show elsewhere; see above p. 27 n. 4. 

3 The scholiast to Pindar Pyth. IV.ioo relates that Menecles (FGH. Ill A 
p. 83) gives a stasis at Thera as the reason for Battus' resort to Delphi and 
the colonizing expedition, Battus being the leader of the losing side. This is 
incompatible with the general conscription of the colonists found in both 
Herodotus (IV. 153) and the decree. Menecles' account is preferred by the 
scholiast because it is less mythical than the story of Battus' vocal impedi- 
ment. This may be true, but that is not the true choice, which lies between 
famine and stasis. The account of Menecles might be an attempted rational- 
ization of a later age, conjectured from the passage Hdt. IV. 156. 3 (the 
refusal to allow the colonists to land when they attempted to return). 

4 Tod I p. 33. 

5 An earlier date, the first quarter of the fifth century, is tentatively pro- 
posed on the grounds of the letter forms by Jeffery, Local Scripts of Archaic 
Greece, 106. 



42 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

ancient standing, 1 so that the settlement is a re-colonization, or, 
more probably, reinforcement, of an existing city. 

Any reconstruction must be based mainly on the internal 
evidence of the decree itself. Some have been overimpressed by 
provisions which seem to emphasize the military nature of the 
settlement, as, for example, those which aimed at keeping the 
number of male heads of houses constant and allowed for un- 
conditional return if the colonists were driven out (6 ff, 9 ff). 
So Curtius 2 proposed an ingenious theory that Corinth was 
responsible for the re-colonization, which was intended to pre- 
vent Athenian encroachment, and used these provisions to show 
that the settlement had the nature of a garrison. Oldfather, for 
similar reasons, made a more convincing suggestion that it was 
a move in the Locrian struggle with the Aetolians of the hinter- 
land, who may have been so successful against Naupactus that 
large losses in population had to be made good. 3 But there is no 
need to refer these provisions to a definite warlike threat. A 
Greek city always felt its existence to be precarious, and the 
campaigns in the Archidamian War show the troubled charac- 
ter of this area. 

It is unnecessary to go into detailed conjectures here. The 
general character of the undertaking is clear from the decree. 
That it was not economically necessary for the metropolis, as 
Gyrene was, is shown by the easy terms of return, provided the 
claims of Naupactus were satisfied. But that it served political 
ends seems clear from the whole tone of the decree, and es- 
pecially, for instance, from the oath of loyalty (11-14). This 
decree, therefore, arranged for the reinforcement of an existing 
community in connection with certain political aims of the 
metropolis. 

The historical circumstance of the Athenian colony at Brea 
have been described in Chapter III. This was a colony sent 
out by an imperial state to strengthen its empire in an important 
region. 

As the inscription concerning Black Corcyra is occasionally 
useful for purposes of comparison, an account of the circum- 
stances of this expedition is also required. Once again there is 
only the internal evidence from the document itself. The ex- 

1 For its history see RE s.v. Naupaktos 1983 f. 

2 Hermes x 1876, 237 ff. 3 See RE s.v. Lokris 1 194-6. 



FOUNDATION DECREES 43 

pedition was probably small. This is a reasonable inference from 
the fact that over 150 names of settlers are inscribed below the 
decree on the extant fragments of the stone. Only if the stele 
were abnormally large could more than 300 names have been 
inscribed. The inscription may be roughly dated to the fourth 
century on epigraphical grounds; a more precise date is given 
in SylL 3 , c. 385, because the colonization has been connected 
with the activity of Dionysius I in the Adriatic. 1 But though it is 
possible that the mother city, Issa, was a foundation of Diony- 
sius, 2 there is nothing in the inscription to indicate that the 
colony was the result of Syracusan imperial ambitions. The 
tone of the inscription rather suggests that it was a regular 
agricultural settlement. 

A slight difficulty is presented by the information from 
ancient authors 3 that the island was settled by Cnidians. Beau- 
mont made out a plausible case for setting this event in the 
sixth century after the Cnidians had helped the Corcyreans 
against Periander, 4 so that it seems he must be right in thinking 
that the Cnidian settlement had died out in some way before 
the new Issaean foundation. 5 It might explain how the com- 
pilers of the decree had such a clear idea of the available land, 
its quality and the difference between c the city' and the outer 
country, if they were resettling and refortifying a place already 
occupied in the past by Greeks. 6 

1 See Syll* notes to 141. 

2 The only precise testimony is the passage Ps-Scymnus 413 f, where it is 
said to have been founded by Syracusans. Its proximity to Pharos, however, 
where Dionysius helped the Parians to settle a colony (Diod. XV. 13.4), 
combined with Ps-Scymnus' statement, has led to the assumption that it 
was founded by Dionysius. Cf. Gitti, La Parola del Passato vii 1952, 179. 

3 Ps-Scymnus 428, Pliny N.H. 111.152, Strabo 1.315. 
*J#Slvii 93 6, 173 ff. 

5 This seems more likely than that there were two Greek cities existing on 
this remote island at the same time, as Brunsmid suggested; see KlaSen- 
bach, 'Zur Siedlungsinschrift von Korkyra Melaina', Studid in Honorem Acad. 
D. Decev (Sofia 1958) 220. 

6 The reading of this inscription demands a word. Wilhelm's restorations 
otmaT]av and oixicnat (1-2) are merely suggestions (see above p. 40 n. 8), 
so cannot be used as evidence about oikists. Brunsmid J s earlier hoytarldv (see 
Syll* notes ad. loc.) seems just as good, and the office is known to have 
existed at Issa (ibid.). The disharmony between the restored awdtfxa etc. of 
1-2 (i.e. the record of the agreement between certain officials and the lords 
of Black Gorcyra) and the later part of the inscription, which is patently a 
decree, makes the restorations of the opening lines suspect. A new restora- 
tion of these should perhaps be made, taking account of the two facts that 



44 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Of the three decrees concerning Brea, Gyrene and Naupac- 
tus the last stands apart in that it contains no practical pro- 
visions for settling the colony. No oikist is appointed and there 
are no arrangements for division of land, much less any of the 
smaller administrative details found in the Brea decree, like 
travelling expenses (30 f) or a time limit for the colonists' 
departure (29 f). Athens may have been more paternal about 
such administrative details, as the careful provision of equip- 
ment for the colony to the Adriatic 1 over a hundred years later 
might be held to show, but even the Gyrene decree begins with 
the provision that the colony be sent and Battus be its oikist 
(24-27). 

The absence of such practical matters convinced Oldfather 2 
that we have only part of the foundation decree for Naupactus. 
He noted in support of this view that there is also no mention 
of the body which passed the decree. But this omission has been 
adequately explained by Meyer, 3 who pointed out, with 
examples, that it was not normal in archaic documents to ex- 
press everything which a member of the community would 
automatically understand or which necessarily followed from 
the context. It was unnecessary to say that the assembly of 
Opus, or whatever body it was, had passed the decree. Further- 
more the beginning of the inscription is recognizably a begin- 
ning: h Nwbnaxrov na ra>vds \-ojtipoiHia. There may have been 
another decree arranging the practical matters, but our decree 
is complete. The fact that it is 'the colony' shows either that 
there was another decree, arranging for the colony to be sent 
and other practical matters, or that these things were known 
and agreed beforehand, and a decree was unnecessary. Which- 
ever was so, for our purposes it is fortunate that the decree has 
as its main subject the colonist's position, especially with regard 
to the mother city, for the practical arrangements in the other 
decrees are inevitably less informative about the relationship 
between colony and mother city. 4 

it is a decree and that Pyllos and his son are natives not Greeks. Klaffen- 
bach has improved the reading of line 5 in the work cited in the preceding 
note, but the larger problem remains. 

1 Tod 200. 2 RE s.v. Lokris 1240. 

3 Forschungen zur alien Geschichte 1.295. 

4 As, for instance, the inscription about Black Gorcyra, which arranges 
one practical matter, land division. 



FOUNDATION DEGREES 45 

It is because it is so much fuller on these topics than the other 
decrees that the Naupactus decree will be investigated first, 
and the others compared with it where possible. Then pro- 
visions in the other decrees which have no counterpart in that 
about Naupactus will be considered. 1 

One of the most striking aspects of the Naupactus decree is 
its form. After the first paragraph (1-1 i), which covers several 
topics, the remaining paragraphs are numbered, 2 and each 
contains strictly one provision only. The significance of this 
distinction is disputed, but there are good reasons to believe 
that the first, unnumbered section contains the general matters 
regarded as most important by colonists and metropolis. 3 

A second general question is the exact scope of the decree. It 
has often been erroneously stated that the purpose of the decree 
was to regulate relations between colony and metropolis. 4 In 
fact there are provisions regulating not only these relations, but 
also the affairs of Naupactus, 5 and there are also two passages 
in which affairs of all the West Locrians appear to be the 
decree's concern (10 f; 14-16). The fact that the decree con- 
tains all these matters raises the question of the relations of 
Opus, or more generally, the Hypocnemidian Locrians, with 
Naupactus (that is, the inhabitants already there), and with 
West Locris as a whole. 

The relationship of Opus with Naupactus is brought into 
prominence by paragraph i (A. 11-14). The colonists are to 
swear not to secede from the Opuntians and the oath may be 
renewed in thirty years time by a hundred Opuntians and a 
hundred Naupactians. This provision for renewal shows clearly 
that the state of Naupactus was to be dependent on Opus. 6 

1 Of the many works on the Naupactus inscription (for a good bibli- 
ography see Hicks and Hill p. 7, to be supplemented by Tod I p. 31), the 
fullest and most fundamental discussion remains that of R. Meister, 'Das 
Golonialrecht von Naupaktos' (Ber. d. sacks. Gesell. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig, Phil. 
Hist. Klasse, 1895, 272-334). 

2 This is the first example in Greek epigraphy of such numbering by 
letters of the alphabet; see Tod BSA xlix 1954, i ff. 

3 For the detailed arguments for this conclusion see Appendk III. 

4 By Meyer, Forschungen zur alien Geschichte 1.291; Hicks and Hill, p. 33; 
the editors of the Recueil des inscriptions iuridiques grecques, 184; andjeffery, 
Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 106. Meister rightly objected to this, 287 n. 2. 

5 As Meister 287 f. 

6 This is not accepted by Meister (302), who assumes that Naupactus was 
an independent state } and that the oath of loyalty could only be laid on 



46 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

As it is reasonable to assume that there was a considerable 
population already at Naupactus, 1 their relationship with Opus 
must have been of the same sort as the colonists achieved by 
taking the oath not to secede. How had this relationship 
arisen? 

Thucydides' account of the relations between Corinth and 
Epidamnus may provide an analogy. After previous negotia- 
tions the Epidamnians handed over the colony to Corinth 
(naQsdoaav rrjv anoiKiav, 1.25.2)5 and as a consequence the 
Corinthians were able to announce a colonial expedition to 
Epidamnus on terms of equality for the colonists (I.27.i). 2 
Presumably the Naupactians could have converted themselves 
into colonists of Opus in the same way, and, if it were thought 
necessary, taken a similar oath of loyalty to that of the colonists. 

individual colonists, not the state of Naupactus. This leads him to the 
unlikely position that the oath bound the individual colonist to resist if the 
majority at Naupactus voted for secession and that the provision for return 
(8-10) was designed to offer them a retreat if this very situation arose. But 
if Naupactus were independent it would be most unsatisfactory for them to 
have a body of citizens bound in allegiance to another state. Nor would 
Opus be likely to bind in allegiance colonists likely to be outvoted in an 
assembly. Further, as the oath thirty years later was clearly to be sworn on 
behalf of Naupactus, Meister is forced to maintain that this would not be 
a renewal, and support this by the arguments that the original oath was 
not sworn for a definite time, and many of the original colonists would have 
returned or be dead in thirty years. His view is that this provision allows for 
the possibility that the whole city will swear loyalty next time. But the fact 
that the original oath was not sworn for a definite time does not mean that 
it could not be renewed; cf. Athens' treaties with Leontini and Rhegium, 
which were renewed in 433/2 (Tod 57, 58), although they were made, 
according to Meritt (CQ,xl, 1946, 91), in c. 448, and, if his ingenious argu- 
ments (85-91) are accepted, for ever (eg dldtov). Furthermore, since from 
paragraph i(A) onwards, one paragraph contains strictly one subject, it 
would be strange to provide within the paragraph, without warning, for 
two oaths with very different validity. The simple explanation is better: the 
colonists are to become Naupactians (2); their oath can be renewed by 
Naupactus in the next generation. 

1 This follows from the knowledge of its previous existence; see above 
p. 42 n. i. But Meyer also argues (op. cit. 292) that the frequent use of the 
word inifQiyoi to describe the colonists shows that it was a reinforcement; 
the word may well have this technical sense here. Meister's view about the 
religious provision (to be considered fully below), which seems right, 
demands that some of the earlier citizens of Naupactus remained. 

2 Meister rightly brings forward the example of Epidamnus (288), but 
uses it to support his idea that there was a treaty between Opus and 
Naupactus. Thucydides' simple phrase hardly suggests such a treaty, and 
Corinth's subsequent actions seem to be made on her own initiative entirely, 
based on Epidamnus' single act of handing itself over to Corinth. 



FOUNDATION DEGREES 47 

However, it may not have been necessary for the Naupao 
tians to convert themselves into colonists of the Hypocnemidian 
Locrians. An inscription is recorded in Strabo (IX.425) which 
states that Opus was metropolis of all the Locrians: 

Totiade noOel cpQi^evovt; vneq "Ekhddot; avria Mtfdcov 
Q&V evOvvojucov 'Onoeic;. 1 



As this was set up at Thermopylae to commemorate those who 
fell in the battle of 480 it is of the right date to illustrate a belief 
current at the time of our decree. It may be that this fact or 
belief was the justification for the colony's despatch, and for the 
oath not to secede, and that it determines the relationship 
between Opus and the inhabitants of Naupactus. 2 

The same fact or belief may explain the two provisions which 
seem to imply that Opus exercised some control over the affairs 
of the West Locrians. The second (s(B), 14 f) decrees that a tax- 
defaulter from Naupactus be excluded from the Locrians until 
he has paid his lawful debts to the Naupactians. This shows that 
Opus could apparently legislate for all the Locrians to this 
extent. 

In the first (10 f) the colonists are to pay no tax except in 
common with the West Locrians. It has been suggested 3 that 
the tax referred to is a tribute paid by the West Locrians to 
Opus. This point cannot be definitely decided, because the 
very brief words of the inscription, Tehogjur) cpaqsiv jurjdsv Vo^ri^ri 
ysTa AOXQOOV TWV feanaQicov, are open to various interpretations. 
The tax or tribute is probably not to be identified with taxes 
paid in Naupactus, the existence of which is shown by para- 
graph 2(6), nor with those of the Hypocnemidian Locrians, for 
that subject is settled in lines 4-6, where it is stated that the 
colonists are to pay no taxes among the Hypocnemidian Lo- 
crians unless they return. It would be wrong to conclude that 
this provision precludes the possibility of a tribute paid to 

1 'These men, who died defending Hellas against the Medes, are mourned 
by the metropolis of the Locrians of righteous laws. Opus'. 

2 For a similar view see Lerat, Les Locriens de V Quest 11.14, wno decides 
that the best explanation for the geographical division of the Locrians is 
that Western Locris was colonized by Eastern, as the ancient sources say; 
cf. the epitaph quoted in Strabo and Ps-Scymnus 480-2. 

3 By Oikonomides, "Enoixia AOXQ&V ygd/^aara rd TCQ&TOV vnd '/. Olxovo- 
pldov exdoOevra nal diahsvuaBevra (Athens 1869) 125. 



48 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Opus, for Opus was not a tightly-knit, single-city state; the 
diversity and number of communities in Hypocnemidian Locris 
are attested by lines 22 and 30. The provision of lines 4-6 
presumably refers to the taxes to be paid by the colonists in 
their several local communities if they return, and that in line 
10 could still refer to a tribute paid to Opus. There seem, there- 
fore, to be two possibilities: either a tribute paid by the West 
Locrians to Opus, or taxes paid by them to a common state of 
West Locris to which Naupactus belonged. Such taxes may 
well have existed, for the league (koinon) of the West Locrians 
is attested as early as the fourth century. 1 In that case Opus is 
merely assuming the right to guarantee her colonists equal 
rights in West Locris. 

These provisions were said by Meyer 2 to show that the 
Stammverwandschaft of the Locrians had political expression, 
though since Opus is at least legislating for all the Locrians it is 
also her supremacy that is revealed. Oldfather in a full dis- 
cussion of the Stammverfassung of the Locrians, 3 considers the 
implications of this inscription, but takes the view that the 
legend 5 according to which West Locris was colonized from 
East Locris was an attempt by the Hypocnemidian Locrians to 
bring the West Locrians into dependence as colonists. So he 
would rather explain these provisions by assuming a former 
agreement between East and West Locris. While this may be so, 
his main argument for it, from the final provision of the docu- 
ment (45 f), does not seem compelling. This provision states 
that 'the statute for the Hypocnemidian Locrians is to be valid 
in the same way for the settlers from Chaleum with Anti- 
phatas'. Oldfather considered that the action of the Chalean 
settlers in adopting the same status as the colonists from Hy- 
pocnemidian Locris was so important a matter that it must have 
been of interest to all West Locrians. But this is hardly neces- 
sary; it was a common practice in colonial expeditions to invite 

1 See Lerat, op. cit. 55 f, for a decree found at Malandrino in West Locris 
(see map in Lerat I) which begins l<5of e r&i KOIV&I t&v AQXQ&V r&v *Ea[nQtcov. 
Lerat himself will not accept (31) the idea of a common tax paid to the 
koinon of the West Locrians, because he imagines that the provision about 
tax-defaulters in Naupactus (i4f) refers to the same tax as that of the 
passage under discussion. But there seems no reason for this connection. 

2 Porschungen 293. 

3 RE s.v. Locris 1239 if. 



FOUNDATION DEGREES 49 

settlers from other cities, and the Chalean settlers would have 
naturally adopted the arrangements made for the other 
colonists, without necessarily considering that their action 
affected their fellow West Locrians. There are difficulties in the 
detailed interpretation of this provision, l but one point relevant 
here seems clear. These settlers were ready to take the oath not 
to secede from Opus. They would have undertaken this obliga- 
tion more easily if Opus were regarded as the metropolis of all 
the Locrians, and this is perhaps a further indication that this 
belief or fact was the basis for the supremacy of Opus attested by 
the two provisions under discussion. 

The first provision of the decree (1-4) concerns the religious 
position of the colonists. Editors differ on its interpretation. 
There is no dispute about the letters on the bronze but the V 
ofNavnanTiov(cov) could represent either omikron or omega, and 
the accent on 6ata must be placed according to interpretation. 
Meister (274) read in line 2 Navnaxrfov eovra hfowo &w oaia 
JLay%dvew ual Ovew Igefaev KtL\ Tod 2 NavnduTiov eovra \~6na) 
evov oaia hay%dvsiv ml Otieiv egsT/tsv nrL There is a third 
difference: Tod takes hforo) as representing ojrcog, though he 
recognizes that it could be a local adverb (6n<fOev) 9 which is how 
Meister takes it; this can be paralleled from some Doric in- 
scriptions. 3 

Tod's translation reads '(The Hypocnemidian Locrian, after 
becoming a Naupactian) may, being a Naupactian, participate 
in social life and offer sacrifice as a f&og etc.' Meister tran- 
slates, '(Dem Burger des hypocnemidischen Lokris soil, nach- 
dem er Naupaktier geworden 1st,) wenn er in Naupaktos da 
sich befindetj von wo ein Fremder nach heiligem Recht Antheil 
erhalten und opfern darf, dies gestattet sein usw.' This he 
explains grammatically (287) : hfowo steht in pragnanter Weise 

1 As Meister points out (328) the provision cannot mean that the Chalean 
settlers would be subject to the same provisions in respect of Hypocnemidian 
Locris. He lists various unacceptable suggestions and adds that it cannot be 
taken quite literally. Neither the provisions for return to Opus, for example, 
nor those about inheritance there, seem likely to have applied to these 
Ghalean settlers. My translation above therefore follows that of Tod (I 
p. 36), who rightly recognizes that the provision should be interpreted in a 
general rather than a literal way. 

2 I take Tod as a representative of the editors who have not followed 
Meister's (to my mind) convincing interpretation (278 ff). 

3 See Liddell and Scott s.v. tinea. 



50 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

fur evravOa \~6na> und Navnaxricw ist der partitive Genitiv, der 
von dieser Lokaladverbe abhangt.' 1 

In choosing between these interpretations the first step is to 
decide the force of oaia. Meister's reading of oaia has a gram- 
matical advantage, which he himself does not point out, in that 
it leaves hay%dvsiv xal Oveiv absolute, a formula, just as they are 
a line later. But he is also able to give many examples (283) of 
oaia (Salrj) in this sense, used without sari. But it is its advantage 
in meaning that makes this reading clearly superior. Meister 
(282) rightly objects that if the colonists were merely to have 
the rights of a eVog in their mother city, not only did they 
receive no privilege over other foreigners, but it would have 
been unnecessary to mention it. Further, if they were only to 
receive the rights of a evo<; in their new city, to take the other 
possibility, in a vital aspect of citizenship they were to be no 
better than foreigners, which is at variance with the whole tone 
of the decree; for throughout every encouragement is given to 
attract settlers. Thus c as a stranger data lay%dveiv^ seems very 
unsatisfactory, whatever view is taken of the locality of the 
cults mentioned. Meister, on the other hand, is able to point 
to an excellent example for the sort of action that his interpre- 
tation proposes. In the inscription IG IP 1214, 14-17, one 
Callidamas, an Athenian, is given the same rights as the 
Piraeans in sacrifices, with a limitation of exactly the same sort 
as that seen by Meister in the lines under discussion: 

avveanaadat KaXfaddpavra /asra IJeiQaidcov sv anaai rolq legolt;, 
nlfjv ell nov avrolg UeiQaievaiv VOJLMJLIOV screw etcnevai, akhun ds /n?. 3 

The early editors 4 all took this provision to refer to cults in 

1 Tod does not represent Meister correctly, I p. 33. Meister's interpreta- 
tion, just quoted, is not c so far as religion allows a stranger (to do so) ', but 
refers simply to place. Lerat, op. cit. 30 n. i, misrepresents Meister in the 
same way, but rightly, in my opinion, will not take oaia as the object of 
kay%dvsiv not Ovsiv. 

2 Tod's translation 'participate in social life' seems to derive from a 
suggestion of Meyer, Forschungen 297, but for kay%dvsiv in close connection 
with Bvsiv not to mean c to receive one's share (in a sacrifice)' is very hard 
to accept. This translation, and the many others quoted by Meister (278 F), 
show the difficulties in the reading oaia. 

3 'Let Callidamas participate with the Piraeans in all the religious festi- 
vals except if there is any place where the Piraeans themselves are permitted 
by law to go, but no one else.' 

4 See Meister 287. 



FOUNDATION DECREES 5! 

Naupactus, but later it was referred to cults in the mother 
country. 1 To obtain this meaning one must translate smrv^ovra 
as 'when the colonist happened to be in the mother country 3 , 
which seems more than it can bear, 2 especially as there is no 
indication in the Greek that any other cults are in question than 
those of Naupactus, the only name mentioned. It is therefore 
easier to suppose that the cults are those of Naupactus, 3 es- 
pecially if one accepts Meister's interpretation of 6aia and 
hozwD, for it seems unlikely that colonists for whom return was 
envisaged as a clear possibility should be excluded as strangers 
from any cults in the mother country. If we take this view we 
have an interesting example of the way subsidiary immigrants 
were treated regarding their religious status, but no informa- 
tion about their relations with the mother city, 

Taxes or tribute are dealt with in three provisions of the 
decree (4-6, 10 f and (s.B) 14-16), of which the last merely 
protects Naupactus against absconding tax-defaulters and the 
second is too brief to admit of certain interpretation. The first, 
however, throws interesting light on the colonists' relations 
with their mother city. It runs thus: 

Tehog rovg emfolxovg AQKQ&V r&v \-YnoKvajjii8iwv jur] cpaqeiv ev 
rolg ^rYnoHva^idioK; <PQUV Kofi rig AOQQOS yivr^ai rcov 



It has been seen 4 that this presumably refers to the normal 
taxes paid by citizens of the Hypocnemidian Locrians in their 
local communities. If the colonist returns he is once more liable 
to these. 

Now the decree makes quite plain that the colonist is to 
become a Naupactian and cease to be a citizen of Hypocnemi- 
dian Locris. 5 Yet it is thought necessary to state that the 

1 See Meyer op. cit. 291, Hicks and Hill p. 33, Recueil des inscriptions 
iuridiques grecques p. 181. Tod's translation does not show his opinion, but 
his immediately subsequent explanation of the words ?) dd/uco (4) by a des- 
cription of the division of Eastern Locris into demes shows that he takes the 
provision as referring to cults of the mother city. 

2 Vischer's interpretation 'when he is present* (Rh, Mus. xxvi 1871, 38 ff) 
is accepted by Tod and Meister. This must mean, as the Greek stands, 
'present at the sacrifices*. 

3 It does not alter this conclusion whether one reads NavnaKticov with 
Meister or Navadxriov with Tod, and both are possible, but the order of the 
words seems to make Tod's the more natural reading. 

4 Above pp. 47 f. 5 See e.g. i f, 6 a 22 f. - 



52 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

colonists will not be liable to taxes paid by Hypocnemidian 
Locrians. It would be strictly logical to infer that but for this 
provision they could still be required to pay taxes in Hypoc- 
nemidian Locris although they had ceased to be citizens of it. 
But the wording of the provision reveals an immediate con- 
nection between citizenship and the payment of these taxes, so 
that it seems better to assume that the decree here expresses 
something inherent in the loss of citizenship. 

This strictly unnecessary expression may be explained by the 
circumstances of the expedition. It can be seen throughout the 
decree that the colonists are encouraged to go; every discourag- 
ing fear is removed. Furthermore the possibility of easy return 
and the provision for inheritance by citizens of one state from 
those of the other, which will be considered below, must have 
had the effect that the colonists felt far less cut off from their 
old home than those of a colony like Gyrene. For these reasons 
it was found necessary to express the automatic effect of the 
change of citizenship on the colonists' tax liability. 

The provisions for return in the Naupactus decree are most 
revealing. This is not only because they are full and informa- 
tive, but also because their significance is precisely established 
by the decree's insistence that the colonist is to become a 
Naupactian. By joining the colony he loses his original citizen- 
ship; the provisions for return give the legal conditions for its 
recovery. 

Paragraph 4 (A 19-22) states the procedure which the re- 
turning colonist must follow: he must make a public announce- 
ment in Naupactus and among the Hypocnemidian Locrians. 
The conditions for return are given in lines 6-10. A colonist 
may return voluntarily without penalty, 1 if he leaves a grown 
son or brother in Naupactus (i.e. if the number of male heads 
of families in Naupactus is not reduced), or if he is compelled 
'by necessity'. This implies that he might also return, with a 
penalty, if neither of these conditions was fulfilled. These are 
very easy terms. It seems clear from them that the colony did 
not arise from need at home; the colonists are discouraged from 

1 everrJQta probably means entry fees or the like. So Tod translates (p. 34), 
but Meister (295-8), who argues the point very closely with full discussion 
of earlier commentators' views, decides that they represent a sacrifice that 
a new citizen had to offer (298) . This does not alter the general significance, 
however. 



FOUNDATION DECREES 53 

returning only in order to protect the colony. This would be 
necessary to ensure the success of any colony; it is therefore a 
minimum limitation of the right to return. 

The provision for return in the Gyrene decree (33-7) makes 
a profitable comparison. There a return to full citizen rights was 
only allowed if the Theraeans had not been able to help the 
colonists, if they were under pressure of necessity, and if they 
returned within five years. 1 This very grudging right of return 
fits the circumstances of the foundation of Gyrene, a colony 
founded to relieve the pressure of population at home. In the 
event, when the colonists tried to return, they were not allowed 
to do so. 2 However, if in this forced colonization a right of 
return was still conceded to the colonists, it may be assumed that 
it was normal to provide in the act of foundation for return if 
the expedition failed. 

If the right of return in the Gyrene decree may be regarded 
as the minimum, that at Naupactus must be near the maximum. 
Yet even here it was necessary expressly to provide for un- 
conditional return under pressure of necessity. It is interesting 
and possibly significant that both decrees use the word avdyxq 
in this context. This was perhaps a matter regularly arranged at 
the despatch of colonies. If so, it is not surprising that it comes 
in the first paragraph of the Naupactus decree, as a matter of 
general and fundamental importance to colonists and metro- 
polis. 3 

The first numbered provision is the oath of the colonists not to 
revolt from the Opuntians (11-14). The significance of this 
regarding Naupactus' relations to Opus has been discussed 
above, where it was seen to be probable that the oath meant the 
allegiance of Naupactus to Opus. The degree of allegiance is 
not clear. Meyer 4 thought that it meant only that the colonists 
should remain true to the mother city and not fight against it. 
Hicks and Hill (34) took it as merely showing an alliance. But 

1 The phrase dAAd avdyxat d#0o5m err] BTIL nevre in rat; ya$ *rrA. might mean 
that they could not return until they had suffered under necessity for five 
years, but this seems less likely. It is most inhumane and seems less suitable 
for Thera's needs. If any colonists remained after enduring five years it 
might be thought that the colony was established and should continue. In 
either case the right of return is strictly limited. 

2 SeeHdt. IV.I56.3. 

3 For further discussion of the right to return see Chapter VI. 

4 Forschungen 1.299. 



54 COLONY AND. MOTHER CITY 

the words ^ "noard^sv imply at least some measure of depen- 
dence, not an alliance of equals. Herodotus and Thucydides 
frequently use the same word in the sense 'to revolt from' 1 and 
Tod's translation accepts this meaning. An admissible parallel 
may be seen in the oath sworn by the Chalcidians in the in- 
scription Tod 42, 21 f: OVK &jco[a]r^aofjL(u ano TOV dtfpov t(hv 
'AOrjvaiaiv nrL It is true that the provision for renewal implies 
mutual benefits, as Meyer rightly pointed out. 2 These obviously 
include the privileges about return, inheritance, etc., which the 
mother city could withdraw if the colonists broke their oath. 
But it is also to be assumed that Opus' reinforcement of Nau- 
pactus was part of her policy of protecting the city, and that this 
was the main benefit for Naupactus and the new colonists. In 
this again Epidamnus in her relationship to Corinth may be 
cited as a parallel. Thus mutual benefits are not inconsistent 
with dependence and we may conclude from paragraph i (A) 
that the colony was to be established as a dependent of the 
mother city. 

This provision is clearly determined by the circumstances of 
the expedition. Opus is interested in the strength of Naupac- 
tus, and this only has meaning for her if Naupactus remains 
loyaL An oath of political allegiance in the Gyrene decree 
would be surprising in view of the different circumstances of the 
colony. In the Brea inscription it would be in place; its absence 
may be due to the fact that the text is incomplete. But while 
the circumstances of the Naupactian colony should be remem- 
bered, the extreme brevity and simplicity of the provision 
suggest that it was not arranging anything exceptional. For 
the Locrians at this period the establishment of a politically 
dependent colony was nothing unusual. 

There are three provisions about inheritance in the decree 
about Naupactus, The first (paragraph 3 (P), 16-19) refers to 
the inheritance of property in Naupactus. There are difficulties 
in the details of interpretation, 3 but it seems that there is pro- 



1 Liddell and Scott s,v. d^lffrr]^ B.2. The use of the word for the secession 
of allies from Sparta (e.g. Thuc. .30.1) is also, if not quite so strong as 'to 
revolt from', at least the description of an inferior deserting a superior, who 
will try to prevent or punish the desertion. 

2 Loc. cit. 

3 It is unlikely that the punctuation of the sentence will ever be definitely 
settled. Meister (304-6) treats these problems in detail, but Tod has not 



FOUNDATION DEGREES 55 

vision for inheritance in the following order: 1 first, descendants 
in the family, next, rightful heirs 2 among the colonists in 
Naupactus, and finally, next of kin in Hypocnemidian Locris. 
Only then, if all heirs fail, shall the laws of Naupactus (laws, no 
doubt, regulating inheritance from people without heir) be 
observed. 

The provision allows for inheritance by people from the 
mother community, but the colony is protected from the possible 
ill effects of such an arrangement. For though the next of kin 
among the Hypocnemidian Locrians are admitted, the words 
avrov iovra (18) imply that they had to take up residence in the 
colony in order to inherit. This protected the colony against a 
reduction of population by absentee ownership. It is worth 
noting how easily the decree assumes that citizens of one com- 
munity could transfer themselves to the other. 

Paragraphs 6 and 8 (^.29-31; #.35-37) arrange for the 
colonists to inherit property in Hypocnemidian Locris. In con- 
trast to the provision about inheritance in Naupactus, no 
general order of precedence or principles governing all in- 
heritance are given; instead two specific possibilities are pro- 
vided for. The first of these concerns inheritance from a brother: 
'If the settler in Naupactus shall have brothers, as the law 
stands in each city of the Hypocnemidian Locrians, if the 
brother die, the colonist shall take possession of the property, 
that is shall possess his due share.' 3 The second reads * whoever 

followed him in some points. The differences are: in line 17 Tod puts the 
comma after \-Y?zoMvafM,dla)v, Meister after Navnawrooi; in line 18 Tod puts the 
comma after AopQobv, Meister after XQOLTSIV. Thus Meister makes rov end- 
V%H?TOV dependent onAo<?Qo>v ra>v \-YnQKva.fi,idia>v and joins the later AopQ&v 
to \-6no) K ?ji, translating (276) Von wo in Lokris er immer her sei s . Tod's 
punctuation leads to the translation (p. 34) 'the next of kin among the 
Locrians, whencesoever he be'. So Meister keeps the provision confined to 
the Naupactians and Hypocnemidian Locrians, while Tod (as also Meyer 
op. cit. 300) refers it also to all the Locrians. There seems to be no good 
grammatical criterion to determine which is right, but Meister's interpreta- 
tion seems slightly preferable because of the probability that the Hypo- 
cnemidian Locrian colonist's kin would be Hypocnemidian Locrians. Old- 
father, however, accepts Meyer's interpretation (REs.v. Lokris 1241), which 
demands Tod's punctuation. 1 As Meister 304-6. 

2 The exact meaning of the word e%Bndfj,a>v is obscure, but the general 
translation 'heir' (as Tod p. 34) probably embraces whatever precise 
meaning it may have had. 

3 My translation follows the general lines of those of Tod (p. 35) and 
Meister (277). 



56 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

of the colonists to Naupactus leaves behind a father, and leaves 
his property with his father, shall be allowed, when the father 
dies, to recover his share'. 

The position regarding inheritance in Hypocnemidian Locris, 
in so far as it can be learnt from these provisions, does not seem 
to have been entirely simple. The arrangements cover the case 
of the death of a brother and of the death of the father, but in 
the latter instance the inheritance is only of the share that the 
colonist has left with the father. One notes that what might be 
called normal inheritance, of the father's goods by the sons on 
the father's death, 1 is not provided for. It is noteworthy too that 
the brother's goods are to be inherited by brothers. One must 
assume that he died without issue, though this is not said, in 
contrast to paragraph 3 (I 7 ) where the conditions are clearly 
stated (al KQL ^f] yeVog xtL] . A possible explanation for this would 
be that the father and grown-up sons shared the family property 
and if one died the shares of the others were equally increased. 2 
To keep his share intact the colonist left it with his father. In 
relation to such circumstances the two provisions become in- 
telligible. If they do imply this position, they may be said to 
provide for the colonist's regular inheritance within the family. 
In the ordinary way he would have his share, and it is the 
difference made to this by his becoming a colonist of Naupactus 
that gave rise to the need for these two provisions. 

These were, however, by no means the only rights of in- 
heritance known among the Locrians, who were particularly 
interested in these rights. 3 As has been seen, paragraph 3 
recognized the inheritance rights of people outside the family, 
and it is not the only example. In a decree of about the same 
date concerning a small settlement in West Locris, 4 the in- 

1 Normally in Greece the first heirs were the legitimate sons; cf, RE s.v. 
Erbrecht 391. 

2 Sharing of property among adult sons during the father's lifetime is 
attested in Attic literature; see [Dem.] XLVII.34, (cf. XLIII.ig) and Lysias 
XIX. 37. It would not be surprising, when one considers the very ancient 
Greek practice of brothers 5 equal shares in inheritance (cf. Od. XIV. 208 f 
and K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch d. griech. Antiquitaten II. i, die griech. Recht- 
salterthumer, 3rd edition, 54 f), and the circumstances of an agricultural 
community. 3 See Oldfather, RE s.v. Lokris 1257. 

4 Buck, The Greek Dialects, no. 59; see lines 3-6. First published by N. G. 
Pappadakis in *Ag%* Ecp. 1 924, 1 1 9-4 1 ; edited with commentary by Wilamo- 
witz, Sitz. Berl Akad. 1927 no. i, 7-17. Illustrated in Jeffery, Local Scripts of 
Archaic Greece, plate 14. Tentatively dated by her to the last quarter of the 



FOUNDATION DECREES 57 

heritance of grazing rights is provided for in the following order 
of precedence: son, daughter, brother, next of kin, neighbour (?) . 1 
The conclusion follows: if the position of the colonist as regards 
all rights of inheritance was not settled by the Naupactus decree, 
it was not because such rights did not exist. The two possibilities 
covered must, therefore, have been chosen because these were 
the matters in which the colonist's new status might have made 
a difference. It is presumably right to assume the corollary, 
that there was no difficulty about the remainder of the colonist's 
rights to inherit in his old community. The same conclusion is 
made probable by the content of these provisions. If there was 
such care to protect his part of a deceased brother's share, the 
colonist's right to inherit as, for instance, sole legal heir, must 
surely have been maintained. The rights of inheritance in 
Naupactus were handled more fully, it is true; but that would 
be natural for a new community, where new rules needed to be 
established. It is not unreasonable to assume, therefore, that the 
colonist had full rights of inheritance in his old community. 
This not only suits well the general nature of the colonial ex- 
pedition, but also the fact that the kleros in Locris was only 
allowed to be sold in cases of undoubted need. 2 The desire to 
keep the kleros in the family, implied by this law, is reflected in 
these inheritance provisions, and may in part explain them. 

The question arises whether the colonist could own property 
in the mother country without returning and recovering his 
previous citizenship. It is clear from the provision about the 
Percothariae and Mysacheis (paragraph 5(E), 22-8) that the 

sixth century, and considered near in time to the Naupactus foundation 
decree (106). She makes the interesting suggestion that it is tempting to 
connect the two, and regard the second as fulfilling the provision for rein- 
forcement in the first (see below p. 65 ). One wonders, however, whether 
the many and detailed provisions of the Naupactian decree are appropriate 
to a small subsequent reinforcement. 

1 The last is doubtful. I follow Wilamowitz. Buck (pp. 255 f) assumes an 
engraver's error and reads rot emvofiot (d/*) ouov (translated e to the assignee 
from those of like family'). Jeffery (105 n. i) regards the last five letters as 
cancelled and would insert at this point the detached line from the back of 
the plaque (see below p. 65 n. 4). Georgacas' suggestion (CP li 1956, 249 ff) 
that ouov = OIUQV meaning 'whomsoever' relies on doubtfully apposite 
parallels from much later Greek and yields a poor sense 'to the heir from 
among whomsoever'. 

2 See Arist. Pol. 1266 b 18; cf. too the inscription SylL* 141, in which part 
of the settler's land is made inalienable (8 f). 



58 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

colonists from these two clans 1 kept property in Hypocnemidian 
Locris. For it is said (23 f) that their property in Naupactus 
shall be subject to the laws of Naupactus, while that among the 
Hypocnemidian Locrians to the laws of the Hypocnemidian 
Locrians. Meister (311) takes %^ara for property in land, 
which seems probable in view of the primitive character of the 
Locrian community even in the fifth century. 2 It was possible, 
then, for at least some of the colonists to own property in the 
mother country, although they were citizens of Naupactus. 

Unfortunately it cannot be decided whether the ordinary 
colonist had the same right. The two inheritance provisions 
under discussion do not answer this question. They may merely 
have preserved his rights to property and inheritance against 
his possible return, for which such generous provisions had 
been made. The second provision, referring to the colonist who 
leaves his share to his father, might be interpreted as showing 
that a colonist could not continue to own property in the mother 
community. For if he could, why should he leave it with his 
father? But the position about property implied by this pro- 
vision cannot be reconstructed with sufficient certainty to allow 
a definite conclusion. 

The long provision about the Percothariae and Mysacheis 
(5(E), 22-8) 3 seems to imply that these were specially privileged 
groups. 4 If the etymological explanation of the names is correct, 5 
they had a special religious status, and it is presumably a mark 
of wealth that they were expected to own property in both 
Naupactus and Hypocnemidian Locris. 6 The natural assump- 
tion from the wording of the provision is that their special 
status gave them privileges about property. 7 

For the purposes of this enquiry the important point is that 
their special position at home was not to be maintained in the 

1 Tod (p. 34) follows the generally accepted belief (see Meister 306 f ) that 
these were 'two clans or castes, possibly sacerdotal'. 

2 Cf. Thuc. 1.5.3, though this, it is true, refers to West Locris. 

3 This receives convincing grammatical treatment from Meister (306-10), 
whom Tod follows in his translation (I pp. 34 f). 

4 The general opinion; see Meyer, Forschungen I 301. 

5 See among others Meister 307. 

6 Tod (ibid.) therefore seems wrong to allow for the possibility that they 
were people with lesser rights, a suggestion made in Recueil des inscriptions 
iuridiques grecques (p. 191). 

7 Meister simply assumes this. 



FOUNDATION DEGREES 59 

colony. Here we have an example of the principle that the 
colonist should go on equal terms. When the Corinthians 
advertised for colonists to go to Epidamnus, they assured them 
equality of status (em rfj lay xai d/toia; Thuc. 1.27,1). The same 
words are used in the foundation decree for Gyrene (27 f) and 
the same principle explains the appointment of special com- 
missioners to allot the land (yscbvo/ioi) by the Brea decree (6-8), 
whose duty it would be to ensure this equality in the vital 
matter of land division. This division of land is the subject 
treated by the decree about Black Corcyra. There the first 
settlers each received an equal allotment of land, though their 
share was a privileged one compared with that of later settlers; 
this was because they had fortified the city (3 ff). It may be 
that this fact that the colonists started equal and this equal 
start was a historical and perhaps recent event explains the 
provision in the mountain settlement of West Locris. 1 In this 
one of the criminals for whom dire penalties are prescribed is 
hocmg . . . ardaiv noieoi negl yadaiaiaq (n). 2 Similarly the 
rulers of Black Corcyra are to swear never to redistribute the 
land. 3 

So it can be seen that the principle that the colonists should 
participate on equal terms had definite practical force even 
among oligarchic peoples like the Locrians and the Corinthians. 
It therefore seems reasonable to assume that it was a regular 
feature of Greek colonial enterprises. 

Paragraph 7 (1.32-5) concerns legal procedure. It runs: c the 
colonists to Naupactus shall have precedence in bringing suits 
before the judges; the Hypocnemidian Locrian shall bring 
suits and answer suits against himself in Opus on the same day 
etc.'. 4 A legal provision of this sort was clearly necessary when, 
as is suggested here by the inheritance provisions, frequent inter- 
course between the colonists and citizens of the mother com- 
munity was envisaged. The precedence given to the colonists 

1 See above p. 56 n. 4. 

2 'Whoever . . . causes civil strife over division of land.' 
*Syll* 141, 10 f. 

4 For uncertainties and difficulties of detailed interpretation see below 
pp. 227 n. 2, 228 n. i, and Meister's discussion, 3 13-23. The special difficulty 
of the meaning of the word nQoardrav (34) is perhaps removed by Hitzig's 
suggestion (see Altgriechische Staatsvertrage fiber Rechtshilfe 50 f ) that the word 
means 'surety'. 



60 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

is a good example of the favourable terms offered to those who 
took part in this expedition. No doubt an arrangement about 
legal procedure would be required whenever the colonists were 
expected to maintain close relations with the mother city, and 
it may be that the first incomplete sentence of the surviving 
part of the Brea decree formed part of a similar provision. 1 

The protection of the laws against changes and transgressors 
is the one provision common to all three decrees (Gyrene 40 ff; 
Naupactus paragraph 9 (), 38-45; Brea 20-6). Similar pro- 
visions are very common in all decrees, but they show the im- 
portance placed on the foundation decree and this in turn 
shows that both colony and metropolis expected the connection 
between them to persist and have value. 

There are differences between the provisions of the three 
decrees not only in administrative details but also more gener- 
ally. In the Gyrene decree there is no thought of any possible 
change, and this suits well the finality of the break between the 
colonists and the citizens of the metropolis which the decree 
assumes, and the distance which was to separate them. On the 
other hand the severity of the penalties against anyone who 
violated the decisions of the decree in the Naupactus text (38) 
does not preclude the possibility of changes agreed by the 
assemblies of Opus and Naupactus. 2 This shows that the de- 
cisions of the decree were thought of as valuable to both par- 
ties, as one would expect, since so many aspects of the rela- 
tionship between them are arranged. 

In the Brea decree, however, the severe penalties for anyone 
who even proposes any change are simply modified by the 
phrase (25 f) ea/j, prj n avrol YoicbioM[oi nsgl (?) ap&v d]awrcu.* 
The value of the decree seems thus to belong chiefly to the 
colonists, whereas in the other two both mother city and colony 
were equally interested in its preservation. This difference may, 
however, be illusory, for the control of the Athenian demos over 
any alteration in the provisions remains. If the colonists request 

1 See Tod 1 p. 89. The new restorations due to Wilhelm and Meritt (see 
SEG X 34) which, would remove this possibility, are no longer supported, 
as was first thought, by the new fragment of this inscription. For it does not 
join the fragments possessed before and so cannot be definitely assigned to 
the beginning of the decree; see SEG XII 15. 

2 See Tod p. 36. 

3 'Unless the colonists themselves make some request ...(?),..' 



FOUNDATION DECREES 6l 

a change, the demos will discuss the matter; any change will 
therefore be, like those concerning Naupactus, agreed by the 
two communities; the Athenian demos controls such changes 
but denies itself the right to initiate them. It was evidently con- 
fident that it would remain satisfied by the position established 
by the decree; the colonists might naturally want changes after 
testing the arrangements in practice. 

If it was necessary to provide for future changes, it is clear 
that both colony and metropolis regarded their relationship as 
likely to persist in the future and be important. On the other 
hand the political purposes in the colonization of Brea and 
Naupactus should not be forgotten. It may have been more 
normal not to provide for changes in foundation decrees. The 
decree for Gyrene, a colony of necessity, may be more typical. 

When one turns to consider the provisions in the other decrees 
which have no counterpart in the Naupactus decree one notes 
first that they include practical arrangements. As has been 
seen, these are strikingly absent from the Naupactus decree, 
while the Brea decree consists largely of such provisions. The 
appointment of the oikist and of commissioners to distribute 
the land has already been discussed. Both the Brea decree and 
that for Gyrene make arrangements about the personnel of the 
expedition. The Brea decree limits volunteers to those from the 
Thetes and Zeugitae (39-42), that for Gyrene prescribes 
methods of conscription (28-30) . 1 Other purely practical matters 
in the Brea decree which need only be mentioned are the pro- 
visions for sacrifices preceding the colony (3-6), for men absent 
on campaign to participate (26-9), for the time limit for the 
expedition's departure and for expenses (29-31). As was noted 
in the discussion of the oikist's role, 2 these show the detailed 
way in which Athens organized a colonial foundation to serve 
imperial ends. But that is all they contribute to our under- 
standing of the colony-metropolis relationship. Nor does the 
arrangement that the sacred domains in the colony should not 

1 This is clear too from Herodotus (IV. 153). The reading and interpreta- 
tion of the inscription is difficult in detail; I discuss it in my article, JHS 
Ixxx 1960, 94 if. Interesting new suggestions about the personnel of the 
expedition are made by Jeffery, Historia x 1961, 139 ff; but they are inevit- 
ably conjectural. Robert rejects her restorations on grounds of syntax (Bull. 
1962, 364; REG Ixxv 1962, ai8). 

2 See Chapter III. 



62 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

be increased (9-1 1) 1 imply anything more than the deter- 
mination to maintain the amount of land available for ordinary 
settlement. It is not comparable to the first provision of the 
Naupactus decree, which arranged for the colonist's religious 
activity in his new home. 

On the other hand there are provisions which concern more 
closely Brea's relations to Athens. The provision for the colony's 
defence (13-17), while it is clearly a protection of Athens' 
imperial interests, 2 is also an example of the mother city's 
assumption of responsibility for the colony's safety. As such it 
may be compared with the implications of the provision for 
return in the Gyrene decree. The colonists were allowed to 
return if, among other conditions, the Theraeans could not 
help them. Here too the mother city assumed some responsi- 
bility for the colony's protection. It was seen that the forced 
nature of the Theraean expedition to Gyrene makes it probable 
that a minimum right of return was granted. This suggests that 
in all regular Greek colonies the mother city was responsible for 
the colony's protection at least in its early years. Hence it had 
to concede the colonists a right of return if it failed in this duty. 

It is provided in the Brea decree (11-13) that the colonists 
should contribute a cow 3 and a panoply for the Great Pana- 
thenaea and a phallus for the Dionysia. These offerings by 
the colonists at the festivals, or to the gods, of the mother city 
can be paralleled by several other examples, which suggest that 
it was a widespread practice. These other examples, however, 
are all instances of subsequent relations, so they will be con- 
sidered below (pp. 159 ff). The Brea decree is the only example 
we have where the practice was provided for in the act of 
foundation. 

The same duty was, however, imposed on allies in the 
Athenian Empire, and in the Great Reassessment of Tribute of 
425 it was applied universally to all the allies who paid tribute. 4 

1 See Tod I p. 89 for the uncertainties in precise interpretation. 

2 See Chapter III. 

3 Or ox, but the sex seems to be established by the words rrjq fiooc, in a 
provision about similar offerings in Kleinias* decree (ATL 11*1)7.42). 

4 See ATL II.Ag.55 ff- Mattingly has suggested that this was the first 
time that the allies were obliged to make these offerings (Historia x 1961, 
153), but Meritt and Wade-Gery show that this is not a necessary assump- 
tion (JHS Ixxxii 1962, 69 ff). Offerings, but not the same offerings, were 
imposed as a duty on Erythrae (ATL I LD 10.2-8; cf. Meritt and Wade- 



FOUNDATION DEGREES 63 

It is therefore necessary to consider whether the Athenians were 
imposing on Brea a duty taken from the practices of their 
empire, or applying a colonial practice to their allies. The ques- 
tion seems to be settled by an Athenian inscription, probably to 
be dated 372/1, which shows that the Parians made offerings 
at Athenian festivals according to traditional custom (\K\ara 
ra naTQia) because they were colonists of Athens (eneidfj [rjwyxd 
vova[i\ ojtoiKoi o[vrs<; T]OV Wjpov to 'AOrjvafov') . 1 This supports the 
restoration of Meritt and West in the Great Reassessment of 
Tribute of 425 by which the colonies are expressly named as the 
models for the behaviour of the allies. 2 We may thus assume 
that a practice originally colonial was applied to the allies in 
general, 3 which recalls the tendency of Athens to exaggerate 
her share in the colonization of Ionia as a way of justifying her 
empire, 4 These religious offerings may be seen as an expression 
of the tie between a colony and its mother city, which made 
them a suitable means for Athens to make a closer link between 
herself and her allies. 

Finally, the provision for the public record of the decree 
(17-20) may be set beside the provisions about changes and 
transgressors. For it shows that the exhibition of the mother 
city's decree regulating their foundation was an important 
matter for the colonists. It is significant that they are to meet 
this expense. For the sake of our evidence about Greek coloniza- 
tion it is fortunate that they did. 

Gery op. cit. 71). The date of the Erythrae decree is uncertain, but Meiggs 
has convincingly shown that it probably belongs to the years 452-449 (his 
arguments are preferable to those used by Accame in support of the date 
c. 460, Riv. Fil. xxx 1952, 1 19-23); see JHS Ixiii 1943, 23-5. A provision in 
Kleinias' decree (ATL 11,07.41-3) suggests that allies were offering the cow 
and panoply by the time of that document (see Meritt and- Wade-Gery 
op. cit. 69). That was in 447, according to the authors of ATL and Meiggs, 
but this inscription is dated by some scholars as late as the 4203; see Meiggs, 
'The Crisis in Athenian Imperialism', Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 
Ixvii, 1963, 29. For further suggestions on the date of the introduction of 
these practices in the Athenian Empire, see Meritt and Wade-Gery op. cit. 
71. 

1 See Meritt and Wade-Gery op. cit. 70. 

2 ne/tnovrcov d[e sv] -trji nojunfji [xaddneQ anoi]x[_oi.Stt Meritt and West, 
The Athenian Assessment of 425 B.C., 63, and Meritt and Wade-Gery, JHS 
Ixxxii 1962, 70. 

3 This is the conclusion of Meritt and Wade-Gery, who argue the matter 
more fully, op. cit. 69-71. 

4 Se e Chapter I. 



64 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

There remains one provision in the Gyrene decree, which has 
no counterpart in those for Naupactus and Brea but contributes 
important information about the relationship between colony 
and metropolis. If the colony succeeds in establishing itself, any- 
one who later sails from Thera 1 shall have a share in citizenship 
and rights and receive an allotment from the unowned land 
(30-3). It is this fargoing right of the metropolis which the 
people of Gyrene recognized in the fourth century, when they 
decided to give the Theraeans citizenship according to the 
traditional arrangements made by their ancestors (4-6). Their 
recognition of the validity of this provision 2 may suggest that 
this was not an abnormal right for mother cities. It should be 
noted that this principle, if principle it was, that the citizens 
of the mother city could settle in the colony, is different from 
isopolity. 3 There are examples of isopolity between colony and 
mother city, but this right is one-sided. However, it too is not 
without parallel. 

The decree arranging for the settlement on Black Corcyra 
provides for later settlers (9 f), but it is not clear whether they 
are simply settlers enrolled beforehand who were not wanted 

1 This may seem a very free rendering of TO>V olxsiwv toy >caranXeov[rd\ 
vorsgov, for it might be thought that olxetcov means kinsmen in a narrower 
sense. It is thus translated by Meiggs (Bury, History of Greece*, 862). However 
Oliverio translates it 'concittadini' (Riv. Fil. Ivi 1928, 227) and Ghamoux 
'compatriotes' (Gyrene sous la monarchie des Battiades, 107). I discuss the mean- 
ing of QMSIOS in this context in detail in my article Oiwjiot, IIsQivQioi (to 
appear in JHS Ixxxiv 1964) where I have tried to show that the word could 
express the kinship in a wide sense that existed between a colony and its 
mother city. Apart from verbal parallels (which I assemble ibid.), the chief 
argument for such an interpretation here is that the only part of the founda- 
tion decree which directly justifies the Gyrenean action in giving the 
Theraeans citizenship (cf. 4-11) is this passage, obtsUov was therefore 
understood by the people of Gyrene in the fourth century to mean all the 
Theraeans. 

2 Attempts to find other reasons for the Gyrenean action have been uncon- 
vincing. Thus Ferrabino (Riv. Fil. Ivi 1928, 253 f) suggested that it might be 
an Attempt to gain good relations with the Second Athenian League, to 
which Thera belonged. But it seems a most roundabout way of doing this. 
Nor does there seem good reason to connect it with Alexander's agreement 
with Gyrene (Diod. XVII.49.3; Curt. Ruf. IV.7-9) as Zhebeliov (CR Acad. 
Sc. USSR, 1929, 429 n. 2). Such attempts all fail in face of the objection that 
a great city like Gyrene could hope for no political advantage from pleasing 
little Thera. 

3 Ghamoux describes the decree as arranging isopolity; see Cyrlne sous la 
monarchie des Battiades, 108, 241. Nowhere is it stated or implied that the 
Gyreneans had citizenship in Thera. 



FOUNDATION DEGREES 65 

for the advance party, or any later colonist from the metropolis, 
for the key phrase, rov<; syegnovrai;, could be translated in 
either sense. In the decree arranging for the settlement in West 
Locris mentioned above 1 provision is made for new settlers to 
be introduced in case of war. The translation by Wilamowitz 2 
is '(the law stands) unless under the necessity of war 101 men 
(chosen) according to worth decide by majority to bring in at 
least 200 warlike men as inhabitants'. It is not certain what body 
passed this law, but the indications of the text 3 are that a 
Locrian community is arranging to settle some land, and it may 
be inferred from the provision under discussion that this settle- 
ment would itself form a community. The mother community 
makes provision for reinforcement in case of need, but allows 
the new community to make the actual decision if the rein- 
forcement should take place. Both the form and the size of the 
reinforcement and the way in which the new community 
should make the decision are fixed in advance by the mother 
community. In this instance the right of the mother community 
to send in new settlers is limited. The limitations may have been 
accepted because the land available was strictly confined, as 
may be inferred from the later provision 4 that the land be 
halved between the first settlers and the newcomers. 

If, as was seen to be probable, 5 Rhodes poured new settlers 
into Gela at the time of the foundation of Acragas, this may be 
another example of a mother city exercising its right to rein- 
force its colony. It has already been suggested that Corinth 
could send settlers to Epidamnus simply on being named 
Epidamnus' mother city, so that Corinth's action may also 
perhaps be seen as the exercise of this particular right. And if, 
as was suggested, Epidamnus' relations with Corinth provide a 
good analogy for Naupactus' relations with Opus, Opus may 
have exercised the same right in sending a reinforcing colony 
to Naupactus. But there is also clearer evidence from the Nau- 
pactus inscription. When it was arranged for the next of kin 
among the Hypocnemidian Locrians to inherit property in 
Naupactus, it was laid down that they should go to Naupactus 

i See p. 56 11.4 . 2 Ibid. 

3 See Wilamowitz, 9. 

4 Lines 16-18; see Wilamowitz, n, on the intrusive line 17. For another 
view see Jeffery, Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 105 n. i. 

5 See Chapter I. 



66 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

to take up the inheritance. 1 This suggests again that citizens of 
the mother city could take up residence in the colony. 

The man who practised the trade of a sophist under the cover 
of gymnastics, Herodicus, may possibly have exercised the right 
to take up citizenship in a colony of his original city. Protagoras 
is made to describe him 2 as *HQ6dixo<;6r})M[jij$Qiav6<;, v6 dsaQ%aiov 
Meyae&6g. He is generally described as a Selymbrian elsewhere, 
as for instance in the Suda. 3 However, as a clearly notable 
figure, to whom a special grant of citizenship could well have 
been made, Herodicus may not be a typical example. 

While these instances are of varying certainty and worth it 
seems reasonable to conclude from them that the provision in 
the Gyrene decree is not isolated, but an example of a right 
regularly enjoyed by Greek mother cities. 4 

It would be wrong to hope to obtain a complete picture of 
Greek ideas and practices in the field of colonial foundations 
and colonial relationships from these foundation decrees. The 
examples preserved are too few to allow many certain con- 
clusions of general validity to be drawn from them. Further- 
more the special circumstances of the several expeditions can 
be seen to have influenced the character of the detailed pro- 
visions. Every colonial expedition will have had circumstances 
peculiar to itself, but the colonies at Brea and Naupactus were 
certainly far from typical of Greek colonization in general. 

It is also likely that some aspects of the colony-metropolis 
relationship were of such a traditional nature that they did not 
need legal provision. For example, the remarks of the Corin- 
thians and Corcyreans in the dispute about Epidamnus seem 
to be made in reference to generally accepted beliefs rather than 
to legal arrangements. 5 It would be wrong, therefore, to make 
much of matters absent from these decrees. They show us 
rather what the Greeks felt it necessary to lay down. 

It is important to remember these provisos, but the three 
main decrees are still of great value in showing the arrange- 
ments made by Greeks for expeditions varying in date and 

1 See p. 55. 2 Plato, Prot. 316 d. 

3 S.v. "InnoKQatrit;. 

4 Schaefer notes the frequent reinforcement of colonies by mother cities 
(Heidelberger Jahrbucher 1960 p. 87), though both here and elsewhere in his 
article he does not use the evidence from inscriptions. 

5 Thuc.I.34.i; 3 8. 



FOUNDATION DECREES 67 

ranging in character from the remote colony of need to the 
reinforcement of an existing, closely-related city. 

The special circumstances of the colony at Naupactus caused 
its foundation decree to look forward to certain relations with 
the mother community which may be regarded as special and 
unusually close. Provision for inheritance between colony and 
mother city, for example, would have been unrealistic at Gyrene. 
It presupposes frequent and easy relations between the citizens 
of the two communities. The same is true of the provision about 
legal procedure, and the very easy conditions for return. The 
practical arrangements for the foundation of Brea must also 
be seen as special and determined by Brea's character as an 
imperial foundation; though the choice of the oikist, which is 
also found in the Gyrene decree, was probably a regular pro- 
vision in foundation decrees. The same may be true of arrange- 
ments about the personnel of the expedition, which are also 
found in both decrees. An important practical arrangement 
stated in the Gyrene decree, implied in that for Naupactus, and 
to be assumed at Brea, is that the colonists should start on equal 
terms. This is an instance where we seem to have a provision of 
general application. 

The forced nature of the colonization of Gyrene gives a 
special value to the provisions looking to future relations be- 
tween colony and metropolis. Where the minimum of such 
relations might be expected, the metropolis undertook to help 
the colony, or (under certain conditions) to allow the colonist 
to return to full citizen rights at home, and citizens of the 
mother city had the right to go and settle in the colony. 

In the Brea decree the most important provision about future 
relations is that arranging for the colonists to make religious 
offerings in the metropolis. As other examples (not to mention 
the implications of the passage Thuc. 1.25.3 f) show that this 
was a widespread practice, it is perhaps legitimate to ask why 
there is no such provision in the Naupactus decree. The answer 
seems to lie in the possibility mentioned earlier, that certain 
fundamental and generally agreed matters would not need 
legal provision. 

In the Naupactus decree there are provisions of fundamental 
importance in revealing Greek ideas on the subject of the rela- 
tions between colony and mother city. The oath not to secede 



68 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

has been seen to show the easy acceptance of the idea of a 
politically dependent colony, but more interesting perhaps is 
the evidence about the colonist's citizenship. It is clearly stated 
that by becoming a colonist he loses his old citizenship and 
takes up that of Naupactus. On the other hand it is necessary 
expressly to free him from the tax obligations of a citizen of 
Hypocnemidian Locris, and family ties are allowed to have 
continuing practical effect, as the inheritance provisions show. 
So while the legal position is clearly stated, ties of blood and 
origin are recognized and keep their practical force in spite of 
the change of citizenship. These indications may imply that the 
Greeks were less clear and definite that the colonist ceased com- 
pletely to be a citizen of his mother city than some modern 
scholars have been. 1 

Finally, the provisions for changes, for public record and for 
penalties against transgressors all show in a general way that 
colonies placed a high value on the mother city's decree regula- 
ting their foundation. This was not only the legal basis for their 
very existence, but also a sign that the community was seen as 
born of the mother city, as a continuation of it. It was shown 
that the same conclusion is to be drawn from the character of 
the traditional arrangements in the act of foundation and from 
the position and honours of the oikist. However great the dif- 
ferences in detail, it was this fundamental basis for the relations 
between the two communities which was regularly expressed 
in the act of foundation. 

1 E.g. Busolt/Swoboda 1265. 



PART II 

SUBSEQUENT RELATIONS 



CHAPTER V 
THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 

T HAS os had the dual rule of colony and metropolis. In both, 
owing to unusually rich documentation, the city provides 
illuminating evidence on the relations of Greek colonies with 
their mother cities. The evidence for Thasos' relations with her 
mother city Paros is unusually good not merely in quantity but 
also because it stretches from the seventh to the fourth centuries. 
This exceptional position is partly due to the rich finds of 
epigraphical material on the island; but the existence of evi- 
dence for the seventh century is largely explained by the poetic 
genius of Archilochus of Paros. Thasos' role as metropolis of 
several colonies on the mainland is largely known from evidence 
of the fifth century and later, but it also is exceptional in quality 
and fullness. Thasos' own colonies were all at a comparatively 
short distance, and it will be seen that the closeness of her 
relations with them probably required such geographical proxi- 
mity. It is therefore convenient to consider with Thasos other 
examples where it seems that the relationship of colony and 
mother city was affected by the same factor. 

Anyone who writes about the history of Thasos must lean 
heavily on J. Pouilloux' book Recherches sur Vhistoire et les cultes de 
Thasos , I. This contains a considerable amount of important 
new epigraphical material, as well as careful reconsideration of 
both literary and epigraphic evidence previously known. It is 
therefore possible on many difficult or controversial matters to 
avoid repetition by referring to Pouilloux' treatment. It is, for 
example, unnecessary to reconsider here the question of Thasos' 
foundation and its date. For it seems reasonably certain that 
Thasos was founded from Paros in the first quarter of the 
seventh century, and that its oikist was Archilochus' father, 
Telesikles. 1 

1 See Pouilloux 22 f. Conjectures of the exact year of foundation remain 
unproved; for these see Pouilloux ibid. 

7* 



72 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

The first evidence for Thasos 5 relations with Paros comes from 
Archilochus, through the surviving remains of his poetry 1 and 
through the Monumentum Archilochi of Paros, 2 which expressly 
depends on the poems for its statements. The interpretation of 
this evidence is so difficult that many of the historical details 
remain quite uncertain. But it must be used as far as possible, 
for it represents a great rarity, direct evidence for the seventh 
century itself, originally written within a generation of the 
colony's foundation. Its fragmentary character makes detailed 
reconstructions from this evidence quite unjustified, but the 
general historical worth of the poems of Archilochus has 
been demonstrated recently by the discovery at Thasos of a 
monument to the Glaukos 3 who appears several times in the 
poems. 4 Conclusions must be very general not to risk forc- 
ing the evidence, but they are not for that reason unimpor- 
tant. 

In the first place it seems clear that in the first generation 
after the colony was founded relations with Paros remained very 
close. So Archilochus talks of the affairs of both communities 
with equal familiarity; to him the life of the two peoples was 
intermingled. 5 It also appears from the Monumentum Archilochi 
that Parians helped the Thasians in their struggles with the 
Thracians of the mainland. 6 The only reason to doubt this 
(though the details are frustratingly obscure) is that the settlers 
on Thasos could perhaps still be called Parians in contrast to 
the Thracians and other mainland tribes. Another fairly 
definite feature of the relations in these early days were the 
reinforcements from Paros. Archilochus himself was presum- 

1 Diehl Anth. Lyr. Graeca? Fasc. 3. The fragments from Oxyrhynchus (Peek 
Philologus xcix 1955, 193 fF.; c 1956,! ff) add nothing for the present purpose. 

2 For the text see Diehl 3 51. This is based on the text of Killer; see 
Nach.gott.Akad. Neue Folge i, 1934, 41-58. A new text of 1. 1-20 is offered by 
Peek, Philologus xcix 1955, 41. For further fragments of the monument dis- 
covered since Hiller's work, see SEG XV.5I7. 

3 SEG XIV. 565. A full study of the inscription is provided by Pouilloux in 
-BCHlxxix 1955.75 ff, with interesting, if necessarily hypothetical, suggestions 
about Glaukos. 

4 Diehl 3 13, 56, 59, 68; see also Man. Arch. IVA.6. 

5 Examples may be seen in Diehl 8 19, 53, 54. But the Mon. Arch provides 
the best evidence; e.g. IA.40-55. 

6 Mon. Arch IA.4O~52. Cf. Pouilloux 30, 33. Some of Archilochus' famous 
lines about fighting are also to be referred to this campaigning, as the names 
show; see ibid. 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 73 

ably one, 1 and it is probably right to conclude, with Pouilloux, 
that there were other, perhaps considerable, groups of further 
settlers from Paros. 2 

It was seen in the previous chapter that there may well have 
been a widespread right for the mother city to send further 
settlers to its colonies. Perhaps Paros' action is a very early 
example of this. On the other hand it is taken by Pouilloux (26) 
to show that the establishment of the colony was not a single act 
but required several efforts over along period. If this is the cor- 
rect interpretation it may exemplify the kind of practice that 
gave rise to the mother city's right to send in further settlers. 
This could well have grown out of the reinforcements necessary 
to establish a colony in its early years. 

Similarly the help given to Thasos in wars against the main- 
land tribes could be regarded rather as the mother city's help 
in establishing the colony 3 than as an example of a general 
principle that a metropolis should help its colony in war. There 
are later examples, to be considered below, which show that 
colonies and mother cities sometimes gave each other help in 
war on the grounds of their relationship. But the early examples 
of such activity which may be compared with the Parian act are 
not surprisingly rather shadowy. Firstly there is the help given 
to Chalcis by at least one of the Chalcidians in Thrace in what 
appears to be the Lelantine War. 4 The information is given by 
Plutarch (Amat. 761 A) alone, and nothing further is known of 
the circumstances, but his authority is Aristotle, 6 so that it is 
at least worth a mention beside the rather better evidence from 
Thasos. 

1 This seems the right way to interpret the oracles and information pre- 
served by Oenomaus of Gadara (Eusebius, Praep. Evangel. V.33.I; Vl.y.S.); 
see Lasserre, Les Epodes d'Archiloque, 211-13, and Pouilloux 26 (especially 
n. 3). 

2 See Pouilloux 26 f, where the mutilated lines of Mon. Arch. IVA.isff 
are referred, with much probability, to such an expedition. And there 1000 
men are mentioned (23). 

3 As Thera undertook responsibility for Gyrene's protection in its first 
years; see Chapter IV. 

4 It appears to be the Lelantine War because it is against Eretria and 
because the Thessalians were also fighting on Ghalcis' side. On this war see 
below p. 222 n.3. 

5 The whole passage Plut. Amat 76oE ff. is thought to derive from 
Aristotle's dialogue Erotikos and is given as fragment 3 of this dialogue by 
Ross in his edition (Aristotle, Fragmenta Selecta, OCT 1955). 



74 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

The second example concerns Samos and Perinthus. Perin- 
thus was a Samian colony (Strabo 11.331, Ps-Scymn, 714 f) 
founded, according to the chronographers, c. 600. Plutarch 
records (&.G. 57) that the Megarians attacked the Perinthians 
and were defeated by an expedition sent from Samos. The ex- 
pedition was sent by the Geomoroi who ruled at Samos after the 
end of Demoteles 5 tyranny. It is unfortunate that this informa- 
tion still leaves the chronology very uncertain, but the latest 
possible date cannot be long after the colony's foundation. 1 This 
is also the most probable time for a Megarian expedition against 
Perinthus, since Megara was no doubt trying to exclude the 
Samians at the outset from an area where the only competition 
she was prepared to admit was Milesian. 2 Thus the Samian 
action should be seen as an example of a mother city's help for 
its colony in the early years. 

Pouilloux is able to show (51-3) that Thasos probably had 
strong trading links with Egypt in the sixth and fifth centuries. 
It is less certain, but possible, as he suggests, that the finds of 
Parian coins in Egypt indicate that the trade route from Thasos 
passed through Paros. 3 This hypothetical connection between 
colony and mother city is made likely by definite evidence for 
close connections at the end of the sixth century. For at this 
time Akeratos had inscribed his proud boast that he alone had 
been archon (or, more generally, held high office) in both Paros 
and Thasos. 4 His dedication runs: 



HO! n[aioi\g fjQ%(?sv JUOVVOQ ev 



1 The problems and some modern theories are briefly and satisfactorily 
noted by Halliday, Greek Questions of Plutarch 2 12. In spite of the aetiological 
character of Plutarch's account and its chronological uncertainty, we need 
not go as far as Swoboda who dismissed it with the words 'die Nachricht . . . 
kann nicht datirt und iiberhaupt nicht fur die Geschichte nutzbar gemacht 
werden' (Festschrift O.Benndorf (Vienna 1898)254). 

2 Beloch s s conjecture (I 2 , 1.359) that the Megarians were the Megarian 
colonists of the region goes against Plutarch and seems unnecessary, though 
the colonists may well have participated. On the probable co-operation of 
Megara and Miletus see Hanell, Megarische Studien 135 f. 

3 His argument from the coin hoards cannot be accorded probative force 
however; see Fraser's review, AJA Ixi 1957, 99. 

4 76? XII. Suppl. 412. First published by M. Launey, BCH Iviii 1934, 
173-183, who dated the inscription on epigraphical grounds which seem 
cogent to c. 500. This date is confirmed by Akeratos 5 appearance in a list of 
archons of the second half of the sixth century; see Pouilloux no. 31, 14 
(p. 269); cf. also his pp. 46 and 270 n. 2. 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 75 

<5 9 dvys^lag n@6 TroAscog Kara <pvha dtfjfflsv 2 

dv[6Qd)tt]oov aQsrrjQ slvsusv dldlr^. 1 

We thus have an individual who held high office not only in his 
own city but also in his metropolis. What exactly does this imply 
about the relationship of the two cities? 

The most extreme interpretation has been that Akeratos' 
dedication shows that there was sympolity between Thasos and 
Paros. 2 But since Thasos and Paros were clearly independent 
states in the fifth century, 3 the earlier merging of sovereignty 
which such an assumption implies 4 seems unlikely. 

A less extreme view is that the inscription provides a very 
early example of isopolity or double citizenship. 5 This is a 
possible but not a necessary conclusion. Akeratos stresses that 
he alone had had this distinction, and the rest of the dedication 
shows that he was an outstanding individual. His distinguished 
career 6 makes him a bad example from which to generalize. 

1 'I was dedicated to Heracles by Akeratos, who alone was magistrate 
both at Thasos and at Paros. He also travelled among the races of men and 
completed many embassies on behalf of his city, because of his unfailing 
virtue' (I follow Launey's interpretation 1 78-80) . 

2 This was suggested by Robert BCH lix 1935, 500. 

3 The independent existence of Thasos in the fifth century is beyond 
question; cf. Launey op. cit. 179 n. 3. All the evidence may be found in 
Pouilloux 5 chapters III and IV. 

4 For a definition see E. Szanto, Das griechische Burgerrecht, 104 f. There was 
sympolity between two or more states when they not only shared their citizen- 
ship but also had the same sovereign power, i.e. assembly, council, magistrates 
etc. For a detailed account see RE. s.v. cr^jroAtTeta, especially 1 1 72-84. 

5 This is Launey J s suggestion, 179. If Pouilloux is right in thinking (16 f) 
that there was a considerable Thracian element in the population of Thasos 
this might make it less likely that Paros would share her citizenship with the 
colony. His main argument is prosopographical. But P. Devambez notes 
(Journal des Savants 1955, 73-6) that these non-Greek names are always 
associated with a Greek name (father or son), so that they can hardly reveal 
a racial difference. He therefore calls them artificial and suggests that they 
are to be explained as showing pride of ancestry, as a reminiscence of early 
intermarriage by the first colonists only. Pouilloux* other argument for a 
large Thracian element (27) is that the colony could not have grown large 
enough to fill the great rampart of the end of the sixth century without it. 
But Malthus noted that the evidence from the North American colonies 
proved that a human community can double itself in less than a generation, 
if there is no check to its growth; see Principle of Population etc. 4th edition 
1807, 6. This argument can therefore also be rejected and there is no reason 
to assume a large Thracian element, which would complicate the question of 
mutual citizenship with Paros. 

6 Which even enabled him to make his tomb a lighthouse; see IG 
XIL8.683; cf. Pouilloux 46. 



76 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

This is a period in which outstanding individuals could appar- 
ently overstep the normal limitations of citizenship. Miltiades 
the Younger could be tyrant of the Chersonese and yet return to 
be strategos at Athens. 1 Men of distinction would naturally be 
more likely to move beyond their city, and go from colony to 
mother city. Thus Androdamas of Rhegium went as lawgiver to 
the Chalcidians of Thrace, presumably through Chalcis, the 
mutual mother city. 2 But if Akeratos was a special case and can- 
not be used confidently to prove isopolity between Thasos and 
her mother city, he still provides clear evidence of the very close 
relations between the two cities. 3 A great man in one was a 
great man in the other. It is over a hundred years since Archi- 
lochus, but mother city and colony have not lost the close con- 
nection that his poems suggest. 

The next important information about the relations between 
Paros and Thasos comes from an inscription 4 about a century 
later than Akeratos' dedication. The inscription is seriously in- 
complete, so that any interpretation is bound up with the 
supplements made by editors. It was understood by its first 
editor 5 as the record of a treaty of alliance between Paros and 
Thasos. Since it is an agreement on oath 6 this was a natural 
explanation of the occurrence in it (8516) of the name Thasos 
(Thasians) and the fact that it was a Parian document. 7 Within 
the limits fixed by the character of the writing the most likely 
occasion for an alliance between Paros and Thasos seemed to be 
the year 411, when both came under oligarchies hostile to 
Athens. 8 The document was therefore read as an agreement 
between colony and mother city to help each other in identical 
policies of hostility to Athens. 9 

1 For references see Chapter IX where his position is discussed. 

2 See Arist Pol. 1274 b 23 and Dimbabin 75, who suggests a seventh- 
century date on the analogy of other early lawgivers. 

3 This close connection lends some support to Ehrenberg's conjecture that 
Miltiades' Parian expedition had as its final aim the control of Thasos and 
the Thraceward Region; see Aspects of the Ancient World 137 ff; but unfor- 
tunately definite evidence is lacking. 

4 IG XII.5.iog. 5 O. Rubensohn, .4Mxxvii 1902, 273-88. 

6 That the document is the record of such an agreement is proved by the 
word SQKO (14) and the first person singular verb in line 9, not to mention the 
other formulae common to such agreements which the fragments imply. 

7 Cf. Pouilloux 187. 

8 See Rubensohn 280 ff, where the evidence is given. 

9 This interpretation was accepted by G. Fredrich; see IG XII.8 p. 72. 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 77 

This reconstruction was inevitably hypothetical, given the 
state of the inscription, and it has since been shown to be un- 
satisfactory. Partly using the criticisms of earlier objectors, 
Pouilloux 1 has built up an apparently unanswerable case 
against the theory of an alliance between Paros and Thasos. In 
the preserved part of the inscription the names of Thasos, 
Neapolis and Delphi occur, but not that of Paros. 2 This could 
perhaps be chance if it stood alone, but it takes on a different 
significance when combined with the fact that the decree is con- 
cerned with reconciliation. The words T]OJV naQMorcov (12 f) 
imply that the parties to the oath swear to forget the past, and 
the negative clauses from the beginning suggest the formulae of 
peace treaties rather than those of alliances, as Pouilloux (185) 
remarks. 

If we have a peace treaty, and the parties to it were Paros and 
Thasos, their history in the years at the turn of the fifth and 
fourth centuries should show serious disagreements. While 
Pouilloux (184) rightly admits that our knowledge is too incom- 
plete to draw definite conclusions from the absence of such 
disagreements from the historical record, he is also right to 
stress that the participants actually named in the text had had 
such hostile relations at exactly this period. Neapolis and Thasos 
had been at war over the years 411-407, and there is other 
evidence to show that they made up their quarrels in the last 
years of the fifth century. This highly important material for the 
relations of Thasos as metropolis with her colony Neapolis will 
be fully discussed below; here it need only be said that Pouilloux 
(184) has good reason to suggest that the document under dis- 
cussion is more likely to be a peace treaty between Neapolis and 
Thasos than between Paros and Thasos. 

The appearance of Neapolitans in the text was explained by 
Rubensohn 3 as referring to Neapolitans resident on Thasos. In 
the detached fragment of the inscription 4 occur the words s]v 
doaii oiKsoat; it was easy to add rolg NeonoUtriic, before these 
words, and interpret the other occurrences of Neapolitans in the 
same sense. The Neapolitans included in the alliance were thus 
those living on Thasos. This was necessary in any case, because 

1 For his full discussion, with an account of earlier work, see 178-92. 

2 Gf. Pouilloux 183. 3 See ^Mxxvii 1902, 276 f. 
4 See Pouilloux 188 n. 5. 



78 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Neapolis remained loyal to Athens in 411 / so that the state of 
Neapolis could hardly be made to take part in an alliance 
hostile to Athens. It may be doubted that the Neapolitans resi- 
dent on Thasos would be sufficiently numerous or important to 
be parties to a treaty between Paros and Thasos. Such an ex- 
planation is, therefore, unsatisfactory, even if the supplement is 
accepted. Pouilloux 5 explanation (190 n.) is made in accordance 
with his general view of a reconciliation between Neapolis and 
Thasos, and seems reasonable; these were perhaps Neapolitan 
refugees living on Thasos whose status needed to be regulated in 
the peace treaty. 

There remains the fact that one copy of the document was to 
be set up at Delphi (4) . This was the main internal support for 
the theory of an alliance between Thasos and Paros in 41 1 ; for 
Delphi was a supporter of the Peloponnesians. Pouilloux criti- 
cizes this view and follows Robert in suggesting that the 
arrangement may rather mirror Delphi's close connection with 
Paros and Paros 5 colony, and with colonization in general.* He 
then uses this interpretation to answer the question why a peace 
treaty between Thasos and Neapolis was apparently arranged 
by Paros. The exhibition of a copy at Delphi shows that the 
decree was concerned with the affairs of colonies and mother 
cities, and the analogy of Epidamnusis cited (191) in support of 
this explanation. Thus Paros is seen in the role of conciliator, 
settling the difference between her colony and her colony's 
colony. 

This hypothetical reconstruction is possible, though the paral- 
lel adduced by Pouilloux is not sufficiently exact to close the 
gap between evidence and imagination. 3 On the other hand the 
decree of Argos about Cnossus and Tylissus, which forms the 
subject of a later chapter, seems a closer analogy for the action 
of Paros inferred by Pouilloux. According to the most probable 
view Argos there arranges the relations of her two Cretan 
colonies. Pouilloux' whole interpretation suits the evidence well 
and is in general attractive. If he is right, we see the effective 
intervention of Paros in the affairs of her colony, and the 
authority accorded by Thasos to her mother city. But since this 
is hypothetical it is worth noting the irreducible minimum 

1 See below pp. 84^ 2 g ee p ou illoux 182 f. 

3 This is especially clear on p. 191. 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 79 

which can certainly be concluded from the inscription about the 
relations between Paros and Thasos. This is that at some time 
about the end of the fifth century Paros organized an agreement 
concerning Thasos and Thasos 3 colony Neapolis. 

The last significant evidence for Paros' relations with Thasos 
within the chronological limits of this enquiry is also epi- 
graphical. The Athenian general Cephisophon was honoured 
by a decree recorded in a Parian inscription of c, 340, * which 
contains the following words: S[n sar]lv [d]w)[g dy]a0o[c neQ\l 
tov &fjpo[v] ro[w] II[aQ\lcw Kal @aalcov. 2 The restorations, though 
numerous, are not likely to be doubted, and the important 
phrase at the end is certain. The form of expression in this is 
most striking. If it was desired to say that someone had de- 
served well of two peoples, it was normal to write dfj/tov twice, 3 
or at least repeat the article. 4 There is thus formal justification 
for Rubensohn's view 5 that the Parians and Thasians were so 
closely connected at this time that they formed one demos. This 
amounts to the conclusion that they had some form of sym- 
polity. 6 Robert 7 combined this evidence with that from Akera- 
tos' dedication and concluded that both showed sympolity. But 
the difference in time and the obvious independent existence 
of Thasos in the fifth century 8 invalidate such a conclusion. 



*IG XII.5.II4; cf.PA 1.8410 and Addenda II p. 469. Although there is 
no proof of the exact date assigned to the inscription, it seems very probable 
that Rubensohn (AM xxvii 1902, 198) was right to bring the decree into 
connection with Cephisophon's activity as general etg xta6ov and elg 
Bvdvriov in .340; cf. A. Schaefer, Demosthenes und seine %eit II 2 . 424 n. 2; 
512. The exact date of Cephisophon's strategiacomes from the inscriptions IG 
II/IIP, 1 628.436 ff; 1629.957 ff; cf. 1623.35 ff; 1629.484 ff; andPlut.Pte. 
XIV.3. 

2 'Because he is a benefactor of the people of the Parians and ^ Thasians.' 

3 E.g. IG II 2 . 1202. 4 f; 12 14.3 f, though these are demes of Attica; but cf. 
Tod 156. 8 f. 

4 E.g. IG. IP.io7.i7f. 
6 AM xxvii 1902, 199. 

6 For the form of expression and its implication Rubensohn gave as the 
only parallel the forged decree in Dem. De Cor. 90. The forgery was exposed 
long since, and lacks verisimilitude since Demosthenes' words clearly refer 
to two separate crownings by separate states: Mys d'a&rois xal Tovg ra>v 
Hvtavrtcov crreydvovs xai rovQ rfiv HsQivdicov. Robert (Villes d'Asie Mineure 
64 n.2.) adduces two other examples of the same form of expression, Ditt. 
OGI 453.5 f; 455.2 f. But they are from the second century A.D. and can 
scarcely be used for comparison with the inscription under discussion. 

7 InBCHlix 1935, 500. 

8 See above p. 75 n. 3. 



80 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Rubensohn, 1 on the other hand, looked for contemporary 
reasons to explain the sympolity apparently implied. His in- 
genious argument was based on the striking fact that Gephi- 
sophon was called a benefactor of the demos of the Parians and 
Thasians, but given the proxeny of Paros alone (11-15). 
Rubensohn therefore suggested that some refugees from Thasos, 
which has been thought to be in Philip's hands from c. 340/39, 
had come to Paros and formed a synoecism and sympolity with 
their mother city. 

This explanation of the apparent sympolity is rejected by 
Pouilloux (431 f) who rightly objects that there is insufficient 
evidence for the assumption that Thasos was in Philip's hands 
before the Battle of Chaeronea. 2 But though Pouilloux has 
shown the lack of evidence in support of Rubensohn's hypo- 
thesis 3 his own explanation of the implied sympolity is not con- 
vincing. He sees no need for special circumstances but regards 
indirect evidence for common policies at Thasos and Paros in 
the preceding years 4 as sufficient to account for it. This does not 
seem to explain adequately either the merging of the two cities' 
sovereignty which the wording of the decree implies, or the 
notable fact that the benefactor of Paros and Thasos only 
receives Parian proxeny. 

It is difficult to reconcile the evidence for Thasos' indepen- 
dent existence with sympolity with Paros, and it is worth noting 
that the records of the political institutions at Thasos show no 
sign of mingling with those of Paros. 5 Perhaps it is best to regard 
the wording of the inscription as an error, or at least a loose 

1 AMxxvu 1902, 286 f. 

2 The passage Dem. De Cor. 197 is the only evidence adduced, but it is too 
brief and allusive to admit of a single definite interpretation. It shows (as 
e.g. Schaefer, Demosthenes und seine ^eit III 2 28 n. 2) that those in power at 
Thasos were hostile to Athens. But this is in 330, when the speech was 
delivered, and thus the passage reflects conditions at Thasos after the Battle 
of Chaeronea. We know that Thasos was independent of Philip as late as 340 
from his letter [Dem] XII.2. Head states (HN Z p. 265) that there are no 
autonomous Thasian coins from the time of Philip, Alexander and Lysi- 
machus, but it is impossible to give an exact date to the beginning of this 
break in Thasos' coinage. 

3 His positive argument (loc. cit.) for Thasos' independence is however 
weak. It is true that Thasos participated in the League of Corinth (see 
Wilhdm Attische Urkunden 1.26 ff; Tod 177.29) but so did Thessaly (Tod 
177.25) which had long been in Philip's power. 

4 See Pouilloux 432. 5 See Pouilloux 431 n. 7. 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 8l 

expression. If it is not taken to prove sympolity but merely to 
show that the Parians saw it as an extra qualification in Ceph- 
isophon that he had also helped their colony Thasos, there is no 
difficulty in understanding the inscription. It would then merely 
reflect close and friendly relations between Thasos and Paros, 
Otherwise we have an example of sympolity between colony 
and mother city, unlikely and unexplained though it seems 
to be. 

To turn from Thasos as a colony to Thasos as a metropolis, 
she seems to have entered on this role soon after her own 
foundation. Her early interest in the mainland is implied by the 
fighting with the Thracians in which Archilochus took part, 
and her strife with Maroneia over Stryme, to which he also 
bore witness, 1 shows that this interest extended to attempts at 
colonization. It is thus a reasonable inference that the Thasian 
peraea, the extent of which is only known from later sources, 
was settled early. 2 By the time that Greek historiography began 
the area was regarded as Thasian. Herodotus (VII. 11 8) de- 
scribes the Thasian colonies on the mainland as the Thasian 
cities on the mainland (r&v ev rfj f^nsiQco noMcov rcov acpersQCJOv 
(sc. OaaicDv) } , and he calls Stryme a city of the Thasians (&aa[a)v 
Tro'JUc). 3 Thucydides records (1.101.3) that when Thasos capitu- 
lated to Athens she gave up rfjv rinsiQov not TO [AsraMov. It may 
be concluded in broad terms that Thasos had colonized the 
opposite mainland in such a way as to make it her possession. 
We must examine further evidence before we can make more 
precise statements about the status of the colonies and the extent 
of Thasos' control. 

Thasos received large revenues from her mainland posses- 
sions. These are described by Herodotus (1,46.2 ff) though his 
figures have been thought unreliable. 4 His information may be 
set beside inferences from the Athenian tribute lists. The ten- 
fold difference between the 30 talents paid by Thasos from 
446/5 and the 3 talents of the preceding years has been regu- 
larly explained by reference to Thucydides' information, noted 
above, that Thasos lost her mainland possessions after her revolt 

1 See Harpocration s.v. ZrQVfj>r]. 

2 On the peraea and its settlement see Pouilloux 32 f. 

3 VII. 1 08. Gf. Pouilloux 109 n.i,who is perhaps overcautious when he 
says that this might only signify that it was founded by Thasos. 

4 See Pouilloux no. 



82 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

from Athens. Three talents is a quite inadequate figure for a 
city of Thasos' earlier prosperity, and a tenfold increase could 
only be justified by a sensational change in her economic situa- 
tion. The explanation regularly given is that she was given back 
her mainland possessions. 1 

In its simplest guise that Thasos had the revenues of her 
mainland possessions again and this explains the tenfold rise 
this view is attacked by Pouilloux (109 ff). He notes that the 
two certainly attested Thasian colonies whose tribute appears in 
the tribute lists, Neapolis and Galepsus, continue to pay tribute 
separately after 446. The former pays the same tribute consis- 
tently. Galepsus, it is true, has its tribute reduced by two-thirds 
in 445/4, which might be held to show that it had lost revenue 
to Thasos at this time; but when its tribute is later again greatly 
reduced, probably in connection with the foundation of Amphi- 
polis, there is no change in the tribute of Thasos. Pouilloux 
argues (in f) that Thasos' tribute should surely have been re- 
duced too. Pouilloux (iogf) also follows Perdrizet in inter- 
preting Herodotus' statement (VII. 112) that the mines of 
Pangaeum were exploited at this time by Thracians as showing 
that the mine at Scapte Hyle was no longer controlled by 
Thasos, 2 and so could not contribute to her revenues. However, 
it follows from Thucydides' words quoted above that the 
Thasians had at least one important mine. 3 

Pouilloux' own view is that Thasos' greatly increased tribute 
is due rather to organized exploitation of commerce. He is able 
to show (37 ff) from an important inscription about the wine 
trade that she had a developed commercial organization in the 
archaic period, and suggests with reason that her great pros- 
perity came largely from dues levied on trade. He restores and 
interprets two fragmentary inscriptions of the fifth century in 
this sense (121 ff) and concludes (129 ff) that it was control of a 
maritime zone and dues levied on commerce rather than direct 
exploitation of the peraea which allowed the Thasian renais- 
sance 4 after her defeat by Athens. 

1 For the evidence and modern literature see Pouilloux 107 ff. 

2 See Pouilloux 109 f for the evidence and further controversy on this point. 

3 As Meiggs noted, JHS Ixiii 1943, 21 n. 4. On this see Pouilloux 1 10 n. 2; 
however he is mistaken when he says that Herodotus expressly states that 
the mine of Scapte Hyle was exploited by the Thracians. 

4 On this see Pouilloux 1 14 ff. 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 83 

Pouilloux' theory is well argued, but must remain a theory 
in view of the fragmentary condition of the important inscrip- 
tions. It is therefore necessary to suspend judgment on the 
exact nature of Thasos' revenues. But that they came directly 
or indirectly from her control of the mainland opposite seems 
undeniable. This is the basis for Pouilloux' assumption of a 
maritime zone under Thasos' control, just as it was the source 
of her revenues to Herodotus (VT.46.2.). It still seems right, 
therefore, to assume that so large a rise in tribute should be ex- 
plained by a recovery of the control over her mainland posses- 
sions, even if we do not know for certain how this control was 
exploited for economic gain. 

The nature and extent of Thasos 5 political control is now 
more precisely known owing to a recent epigraphical discovery. 
This is the stone recording two laws encouraging delation, first 
published and fully discussed by Pouilloux (no. 18, 139 ff). It 
is completely preserved, and belonging as it does to a rich series 
of inscriptions 1 can be assigned its place in the series with some 
confidence. Pouilloux' arguments both epigraphical and his- 
torical seem in general sound. 2 He regards the document as 
emanating from the oligarchy of 411, which intended, by pro- 
viding rewards for informers, to discourage revolts against the 
new regime. 3 However, though this convincing interpretation 
greatly enhances the general significance of the inscription, it is 
not essential to be certain about the precise historical circum- 
stances in order to use it as evidence for Thasos' relations to her 
colonies. For this purpose it is enough that it is a Thasian decree 
of the latter half of the fifth century. 

1 This great advantage is fully exploited by Pouilloux, building on pre- 
vious work on the epigraphy of Thasos; see his Annexe I, Evolution de 
VEcriture. 

2 Note especially his conclusions (145) from the appearance of the Three 
Hundred (3; 10). In a long and detailed review (REG bcxii 1959, 348 ff) 
Ghamoux makes many criticisms of Pouilloux' work, and in particular 
stresses the uncertainties of his hypothetical reconstructions of epigraphical 
documents; see especially 351-8. But on the laws encouraging delation he 
seems to offer captious criticism rather than solid refutation of the main lines 
of Pouilloux 5 interpretation. Gf. Robert, Bull. 1960.328 (REG Ixxiii 1960, 
190). 

3 However recent evidence on the Thasian calendar suggests that a longer 
interval separated the two laws than the four months assumed by Pouilloux. 
See Salviat BCH Ixxxii 1958, 212-15. But a more lengthy troubled period 
than that envisaged by Pouilloux is perfectly intelligible. 



84 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

The first decree offers rewards for Informers who denounce 
revolutionary plots in Thasos. The second offers similar rewards 
to those who denounce plots in the colonies. The opening of the 
second decree reads: 

og d'av sv tfjiG &noMfy<w> enavdaraaiv polsvo/tsvrjv ^ xatsbtw, f} 
nqodidovta rf]V nofav 0affia)V riva % ra>v anolxcov, xal pavfji eovra 
atydea, dtrjxoalos ararfJQag xrL 1 

So the rulers of Thasos were able to offer rewards for informa- 
tion about plots in the colonies, and about traitors to the city 
whether Thasians or colonists, in just the same way as they could 
legislate about plots in Thasos itself. 

The immediate conclusions are clear. Firstly, Thasos could 
legislate for her colonies; secondly, the colonies could revolt 
against her and their citizens could be traitors to her. This is 
control so close that it might be thought to imply that the 
colonies were part of the state of Thasos. More evidence must 
be considered before so extreme a conclusion could be accepted, 
but here a further implication of the law may be noted. The 
simple description Tfj% &nowtr\aiv shows that there was no need 
to name the colonies concerned; they were well known. At 
this date the extent of Thasos' control was well-defined, both 
geographically and politically, and it was not something new. 

One colony which followed a different policy from its mother 
city in 411 and the years immediately following was Neapolis. 
For this reason its history adds to our understanding of the 
relations between Thasos and her colonies. The evidence for 
Neapolis' action is provided by an Athenian inscription 2 con- 
taining two decrees honouring Neapolis for her loyalty and sup- 
port against the Peloponnesians and Thasians (6-8; 39 f). The 
first decree can be dated certainly to winter 410/9, the second 
probably to 407 or later. 3 

The factual information from this inscription is that Neapolis 
remained a loyal ally to Athens even at the cost of fighting her 

1 'Whoever shall denounce a plot to revolt in the colonies/or anyone 
betraying the city, whether a Thasian or a colonist, shall, if the information 
prove true (receive) 200 staters, etc. 5 

2 IG I 2 .io8; Tod 84, republished with many new readings by Mentt and 
Andrewes in BSA xlvi 1951, 200-9, whose version is now printed as SEG 
XII.37- 

3 See Tod I p. 209. 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 85 

mother city. Pouilloux (155 f) combines this with other epi- 
graphical evidence for the events of this time. 1 First with the law 
encouraging informers just discussed; for here is a colony which 
did revolt from Thasos. And secondly with the record of those 
whose goods were confiscated on Thasos, 2 which can be shown 
to belong to 41 o. 3 The last two names on this are of Neapolitans. 
The three texts show Thasos' attempts in these troubled years 
to prevent revolts in the colonies, her failure in the case of 
Neapolis and her punishment of individual Neapolitans. 

But the Attic inscription is not only valuable for the facts it 
provides; it also gives a precious indication of the Neapolitans 5 
ideas about their relations to Thasos. In the second decree 
(49 f) the Athenians accede to the Neapolitan request for a 
change of wording in the first: 

eq de TO (pariyia/ia ro nq6[rsqov &]navoQda)Oai toy yqa^arsa rfjc 
fiovArjs [xal e<; avro psray^d^am dvrl r^g ajtoMi[a<; rfjg &aai}wv 
\-6ri avvdiBno^e^aav ro^no^spov /^[eta 'Adrjvalcov.* 

The present appearance of the first decree (7 f) shows that this 
change was carried out; (the Athenians praise the Neapolitans) 

[KQ&TOV p]sv o {v }n avvdieno[lspi~\Gav rov noks/aov pet a 
'Adrjvalco[v xalnofao]QXovju,evoi [vno Oaaiwy] Hal IIeho[novv]?]ffla)v 
OVK riQ[eXr}aav xri. 5 

The original state of these lines has been reconstructed by 
Meritt and Andrewes (201) as follows: 

/tev oti artoiHOL ovteg Oaaicov xal nohoQKOV^svoi vn avrcov 



1 His very precise reconstruction is, however, more than the uncertain 
chronological indications allow; see above p. 83 n. 3. 

2 IG XII.8.263. 3 See Pouilloux 156. 

4 'The secretary of the council is to amend the previous decree and write 
in it instead of "the colony of the Thasians" "because they fought the war 
through to the end together with the Athenians".' 

5 'Firstly because they fought the war through to the end together with 
the Athenians and though they were besieged by the Thasians and Pelo- 
ponnesians were not willing etc.' The version is that of Meritt and Andrewes 
op. cit. 203; the words underlined are the small letters in rasura of the stone. 
KirchhofF (IG I suppl. p. 17) thought that the hand which wrote those 
letters was the same as that responsible for the second decree; cf. SEG XII p. 

6 'Firstly because although they were colonists of the Thasians and be- 
sieged by them and the Peloponnesians etc.' 



86 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

In 407, therefore, when Thasos was back in the Athenian 
Empire, 1 the Neapolitans no longer wanted to be described as 
colonists of Thasos, but to have substituted for that phrase a 
general statement of their loyalty to Athens. It is easy to under- 
stand why Neapolis' origin was stated in the first draft; as 
Wilhelm says, 2 it was specially worthy of note that Neapolis had 
stood firm for Athens even though this had meant war with her 
mother city. The reason why the Neapolitans wanted the phrase 
removed in or after 407 is perhaps less obvious, and involves the 
Greek view about wars between colonies and mother cities. 

It was seen above (pp. 10 ff) that Thucydides was not alone 
in regarding colonies and mother cities as natural allies and un- 
natural enemies. Wars between them were certainly known 3 but 
were regarded as shameful. 4 In general with colonies far apart 
from their mother cities such wars were unlikely. Only a general 
conflagration like the Peloponnesian War could produce the 
number of such conflicts that Thucydides records at Syracuse 
(VH-57). Neighbours had more opportunity for hostility. An 
example recorded by Thucydides ^.5.3.) illustrates this. In 
423 Epizephyrian Locri was at war with Hipponium and 
Medma, cities which Thucydides expressly describes as neigh- 
bours and colonies (O/AOQOVQ . . . ml anolxovg). But even though 
neighbours had greater opportunity, it need not be doubted 
that shame would still be attached to such wars. 

It is in the light of this attitude that one should consider the 
Neapolitan desire for a change of wording. Wilhelm's opinion 
was that the bitterness of the struggle left the Neapolitans so 
estranged from their mother city that they no longer wished 
to be described as colonists of Thasos. 5 He compared Corcyra 
in her hostility to Corinth. Tod (p. 210) follows him and cites 
Amphipolis' behaviour in repudiating the Athenian connec- 
tion. 6 But neither of these examples is apt. Corcyra never tried 
to deny her Corinthian origin and Amphipolis was at war with 
Athens, whereas Neapolis was no longer at war with Thasos. 
So it is perhaps likelier than Neapolis, though she could not 

1 See Xen. Hell. I.iv.g; Diod, XHI.ys.i; cf. Pouilloux 162 ff. 

2 Gott. gel. Ariz. 165. 1903, 777. 3 Gf. Plato Laws 7546. 

4 Gf. also Themistocles' message to the lonians before the battle of 
Artemisium (Hdt. VIII.22.i). 

5 Gott. gel. Anz. 165. 1903, 777. 
SeeThuc. V.u* 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 87 

alter the fact that she had supported Athens by fighting her 
metropolis, was anxious that the express emphasis on the shame- 
ful aspect of that action should be removed. 

This way of understanding the change of wording suits 
Pouilloux' interpretation of the Parian inscription 1 as the record 
of an act of reconciliation between Thasos and her colony. 
Another possibility, that the Neapolitans were asking for a cor- 
rection of fact, because they were not colonists of Thasos, need 
not be entertained. Apart from the unlikelihood of such an error 
on an Attic decree, Neapolis' position in the middle of the 
Thasian peraea puts beyond reasonable doubt that she was a 
colony of Thasos. 2 The change of wording may therefore be 
taken to show in general the sense of shame attached to wars 
between colonies and mother cities, and in particular Neapolis' 
desire to forget the past and be reconciled with Thasos. 

There is also the question of Neapolis' status vis-a-vis her 
mother city. It seems clear that the colony formed a separate 
community. It is true that in the act of resisting Thasos it 
would obviously appear particularly independent, but one can 
add the evidence that it paid tribute separately to Athens, that 
Athens clearly treats it as a separate community in the docu- 
ment under discussion, and that the Parian inscription shows 
Neapolitans as participants in an agreement with Thasos, 
whether or not one concludes with Pouilloux that it was a 
peace treaty between them. If one accepts Pouilloux' more 
tenuous reconstruction (206 ff ) of the inscription IG XII.8.264, 3 
the same conclusion follows, for he restores this document as one 
of the acts in the reorganization of Thasos in the first half of the 
fourth century, and identifies the people who are to be incor- 
porated in some degree with the Thasians as Neapolitans. They 
would be given ateleia(i] and other privileges, and the sons of 
Neapolitans by Thasian wives would be Thasian citizens (8 f). 
Unfortunately there is no firm indication that the people in- 
volved are Neapolitans. No ethnic is preserved on the stone 
except that of Thasos. However, if he is right, we not only see 
further close relations between colony and metropolis, but also 

1 See above pp. 76 ff. 

2 Pouilloux (157 ff) easily dismisses the arguments advanced against this. 

3 Ghamoux demonstrates the uncertainty of Pouilloux' suggestions; see 
REG Ixxii 1959, 357. 



88 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

clear evidence that Neapolis was not legally part of the Thasian 
state at that time. 

There is a little fourth-century evidence for Thasos' relations 
with her colonies. The rare bronze and gold coinage bearing 
the legend 0ASION HIIEIPO is connected with the founda- 
. tion of Daton/Crenides by the Thasians under the leadership 
of Callistratus in 360. * According to the most recent study, the 
bronze coins of the first three years of the colony's existence were 
struck in Thasos, while a gold issue and new types in the fourth 
year showed that the colony had acquired monetary inde- 
pendence. 2 Thereafter the colony becomes Philippi and the 
issue of the coins inscribed 9AEION HIIEIPO ceased. It is 
not surprising that the first coins were struck in the metropolis, 3 
and as the settlement succeeded and began to exploit its gold 
resources it produced coins of its own. The only point of special 
interest is the legend. That the new colonists thought of them- 
selves as Thasians in their early years and were so regarded in 
Thasos is easily intelligible, but e of the mainland 3 is a broad 
and imprecise description of a new city, to say the least. Perhaps 
we are to explain it simply by doubts about the name of the 
new settlement, doubts which introduced the present confusion 
into the tradition. 4 But it seems more probable that the far- 
going implications of the inscription were intended, and reflect 
the long tradition of Thasos 3 claim to control her peraea. 

1 The history of the foundation and early years of the colony, together 
with the ancient sources and evidence for the exact dates, is well set out by 
P. Collart, Philippes, ville de Macedoine (Paris 1937) 133-7. The coinage has 
been treated recently by G. Le Rider in his study of Thasian coins of the 
time in question; see BCHlxxx. 1956, 16 ff. He maintains (against Pouilloux 
218 f) that the traditional interpretation puts the coins in their correct 
historical setting, which is difficult to deny in view of their similarity to the 
first, autonomous, coins of Philippi. 

2 See Le Rider op. cit. His interpretation seems to provide a satisfactory 
solution to the dilemma that the coins are clearly Thasian yet the series is 
continued (apart from the change of legend) by the first coins of Philippi. 
The latter point convinced Collart that the place of production must have 
been Crenides (135 n. 4 on p. 136), while the former is part of Pouilloux' 
justification for seeing them as coins of Thasos. 

3 As they were for some of the colonies of Corinth (see Chapter VII). The 
new colony was presumably also like Corinthian colonies in using the silver 
coins of the mother city. This seems an easier explanation of the lack of 
silver coins than Pouilloux' conclusion that the coinage was not that of the 
new colony (loc. cit.). 

4 See Collart op. cit. and RE s.v. Philippoi 2212 f. 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 89 

In 361/60 there was further strife between Thasos and Maro- 
neia about Stryme. 1 This was the most easterly point of the 
Thasian peraea, where such struggles could be expected. 2 So the 
evidence supports Pouilloux' conclusion (223) that in the fourth 
century Thasos reasserted the control over her peraea, which she 
had enjoyed in the archaic period, and in the fifth century 
when undisturbed by Athens or by civil war. 

The status of Thasos 3 colonies may now be examined. It was 
seen that the law about delation could be held to show that the 
colonies formed part of the Thasian state. The evidence against 
this in the case of Neapolis is very strong. Galepsus may be 
accorded a similar separate existence, because it too paid 
tribute separately in the Athenian Empire. If these two colonies 
are typical, then the rest must also be allowed this separate 
status. They could, on the other hand, be regarded as special 
cases, simply because they alone paid tribute. However, the 
appearance of Neapolitans among those whose goods were con- 
fiscated by the oligarchs in 41 o 3 seems to show that Neapolis 
came under Thasian jurisdiction, like the colonies to which the 
decree encouraging delation referred. 4 This suggests that Thasos 
included Neapolis among the colonies which she aspired to 
control. 

If Neapolis was so included her separate status may be used 
to prove that of the others. But this is not the only indication. 
The Athenians were able to make Thasos surrender her main- 
land possessions after the revolt, 5 just as Mytilene gave up her 
mainland possessions after the Mytilenean Revolt. 6 It would 
have been difficult to detach them if they had been legally in- 
distinguishable from the state of Thasos, so that this action also 
suggests they had a separate existence. 

The control of Thasos over her continental colonies has been 
seen to be very close, yet they were not simply part of the 

1 See Pouilloux 221 f, for evidence and discussion. 

2 Pouilloux (222 f) connects it with the foundation of Grenides, which is 
possible. 

3 Gf. Pouilloux 156. 

4 Pouilloux, 157, even considered that the indeterminate plural trfis 
anoixtrjGiv of that decree essentially referred to Neapolis; but his connections 
seem too definite for the evidence; cf. above p. 85 n. i. 

5 Thuc. 1.101.3. 

6 See Thuc. 111.50.2, IV.52, and ATL I Gazeteer s.v. ^Anralat, 



go COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Thasian state. This position of communities which were pos- 
sessions of the metropolis and under her legal control,, yet were 
called apoikiai 1 and had a separate existence, was probably only 
possible if the colonies were reasonably near to the mother city. 
Thasos is some twenty miles from the mainland. 

A number of other islands owned or controlled portions of the 
adjacent mainland, but the evidence is generally far less good 
than that about Thasos. Corcyra had land and forts on the 
mainland opposite, 2 and Mytilene had considerable possessions 
on the mainland which she lost after her revolt, as has been 
mentioned. But in neither case are we informed that the pos- 
sessions could be called colonies; Mytilene's included cities, but 
they could have been hers by right of conquest rather than 
foundation. The Rhodian peraea and the evidence for it are 
rather too late for the present purpose; it is very doubtful if it 
was established before the end of the first Athenian Empire. 3 
Only in the case of Thasos have we evidence of relevant date 
referring explicitly to colonies on the adjacent mainland. How- 
ever, other instances may be found in Greek history of colonies 
near to the metropolis, which may be studied in order to throw 
light on Thasos' position, and, more widely, on the general 
phenomenon of colonization at a short distance. 

An early example of control exercised by a mother city over 
a colony at a short distance may be found, it seems, in the 
relations between Epidaurus and Aegina. According to Hero- 
dotus (VIII.46. i.), Aegina was settled from Epidaurus, and 
other ancient writers, with differences of detail, support him. 4 
The matter seems to be put beyond doubt by the fact that a 
special religious festival found on Aegina also occurred at 
Epidaurus. 5 Herodotus relates (.83.1.) that the Aeginetans 
were subject to the Epidaurians both in other respects and as 
regards their lawsuits, which had to be conducted at Epidaurus., 
but that later they built ships and revolted. The position de- 
scribed by Herodotus cannot be later than the seventh century, 
for it must antedate Periander's conquest of Epidaurus, 6 and 

1 The appearance of the word in the decree on delation, Pouilloux no. i8 3 
makes literary references unnecessary. 

2 See Thuc. 111.85.2. 

3 See G. E. Bean and P. M. Fraser, The Rhodian Peraea and Islands, 94 ff. 

4 See Strabo 111.375; Paus. 11.29.5. 5 See Hdt. .83.3. 
6 See Hdt. 111.52.7; cf. How and Wells, commentary on 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE gi 

there are good reasons for putting it in the early part of that 
century. 1 Thus, if Herodotus' account is accepted, Aegina is a 
very early instance of a colony in a position of close dependence 
which successfully revolted. 

Not unnaturally, doubts have been cast on Herodotus' in- 
formation, 2 but the only serious difficulty is the statement that 
the colonists had to go to Epidaurus for their lawsuits. As 
Athens' allies were required to go to Athens for some of their 
legal cases, 3 Busolt objected 4 that this gave the form of depend- 
ence the stamp of Herodotus' own time. While he may be right, 
it is worth remembering that litigation was already an evil in 
Hesiod's day 5 and the administration of the law was the valu- 
able possession of his 'bribe-devouring kings'. 

It would be rash to assume that Herodotus' account is com- 
pletely reliable, but there seems no good reason to reject it. If 
there is anachronistic contamination it may only be in the detail 
about lawsuits. The general picture of Epidaurus' control and 
Aegina's revolt may, with the necessary reserve, be accepted. 
Aegina's position close to the heart of Greece and at a very short 
distance from Epidaurus makes this by no means a typical 
colonial situation. Such a relationship at so early a date is 
hardly conceivable except where distances were small. 

Sybaris seems to have won a considerable empire, which 
appears partly to have consisted of colonies which she con- 
trolled. Strabo writes (1.263) that Sybaris ruled four races 
(I0wj) and had twenty-five dependent cities. These cities prob- 
ably included Sybarite colonies, such as Laus and other lesser 
settlements. 6 Posidonia has been included 7 among these depen- 
dent colonies, but its earliest coins, which are on the Cam- 
panian, not the Achaean, standard, seem to point to inde- 
pendence. 8 It was the most distant of Sybaris' colonies, and lies 

1 See Ure, The Origin of Tyranny 165 ff; cf. CAH 111.540. 

2 The paper devoted to the topic by G. D. Morris, AJP v 1884, 479-87, is 
too inaccurate and illogical to be helpful. 

3 See CAH .94. 

4 Griech. Staatskunde 1.217 n. 6. His other objection that Aegina's member- 
ship of the Galaurian League shows her early independence is less good; 
both the date and the character of this league are too little known (cf. CAH 
IIL6io, 650). 

5 Works and Days, 27 ff, 225 fF; 248 ff. 6 See Dunbabin, 155. 

7 By Randall-Mclver, Greek Cities in Italy and Sicily, 1 1, and by Rieman, 
RE. 2. Reihe IV. i, 1008. 8 See Head, #7V 2 pp. 80 f. 



02 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

about a hundred miles from the mother city as the crow flies, 
while Laus, the most important of the colonies thought to be 
dependent, is about forty. The difference in distance may ex- 
plain the difference in status. However, it must be remembered 
that the identification of the sites of Sybarite colonies is, in most 
instances, nearly as difficult as of that of the mother city itself. 1 
The nature of Sybaris 5 control is quite unknown in detail, but 
the general conclusion that she expanded by means of depen- 
dent colonies at a short distance seems admissible, and Posi- 
donia's presumed independence may be taken to show that 
such dependent colonies needed to be near the mother city. 

Syracusan expansion seems to have been similar to that of 
Sybaris and was partly furthered by colonization. Her founda- 
tions were three: Acrae, Casmenae, and Camarina. 2 Acrae was 
founded in c. 663, 3 and there seems little doubt that the settle- 
ment was intended to secure to Syracuse the whole plain de- 
bouching at Syracuse itself. 4 Because Thucydides (VI.5-2.) 
names no oikist and the city struck no coins till the Roman 
period, Acrae has been seen 5 as an outlying part of the Syra- 
cusan state rather than a separate colony. Casmenae was 
founded in c. 64.3* on a site not certainly identified. 7 The same 
conclusion may be drawn about its status as about that of 
Acrae; it struck no coins and Thucydides (ibid.) names no 
oikist. 8 It is true that the place is described as a polis on its sole 
appearance in history, when it was the refuge for the Gamoroi 
of Syracuse, who had been expelled by the people allied with 
the serfs or Kyllyrioi, 9 but, as Berard (132. n. 3.) acutely re- 
marks, at precisely this moment it was in fact independent. In 
any case it would probably be wrong to press this description. 
It is a reasonable assumption that Syracuse spread her power 
over the surrounding countryside by establishing colonies so 

1 See Dunbabin, 155 f. 2 See Thuc. VI.5.2 f. 

3 See ibid. 

4 Both Dunbabin (99) and Berard come to this conclusion from the 
geographical position; see Berard 132 f. 

5 See Dunbabin 105, 109, and Berard 132. 

6 See Thuc. loc. cit. 

7 For discussions of the possibilities, see Dunbabin 103 f., Berard 133. 
Modern Mount Gasale is the most probable candidate; see Guarducci, Ann. 
d.Scuol. Arch. d. Atene n.s. xxi-xxii 1959-60, 255. 

8 See Dunbabin 105, 109, and Berard 132. 

9 See Hdt. VII. 155.2 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 93 

subordinate as to be hardly distinguishable from the founding 
state. 

The third colony, Camarina, was founded in c. 598 and had 
two oikists. 1 Some fifty years after its foundation 2 it revolted 
from Syracuse, fought an unsuccessful war of independence and 
was destroyed. This, at least is the natural interpretation of 
Thucydides' words 0/1.5.3.), but Dunbabin (106 f ) shows that 
there is evidence that Camarina was a prosperous city in the 
second half of the sixth century, and suggests that the true 
meaning of the Thucydidean account is that the inhabitants 
were expelled, and, by inference, that the city was resettled 
from Syracuse. 

It seems to have been of some importance and in close con- 
nection with Syracuse at the time of Hippocrates' victory over 
the Syracusans in 492, when it was ceded to Gela. 3 Dunbabin 
(407 ff ) assumes from various doubtful accounts that it was 
necessary for Hippocrates to take Camarina before advancing 
on Syracuse, and this seems quite probable. In any case, the fact 
that Syracuse could cede Camarina to Gela shows that the city 
was under Syracusan control, and Herodotus, if his words may 
be pressed, states expressly that this was so. 4 From this time 
onwards the city can no longer be called a Syracusan colony, 
so that its continuous enmity with Syracuse 5 is no longer rele- 
vant to this investigation. 

So Syracusan control over Camarina in its first years was 
sufficient to induce a war of revolt 6 and the later repopulated 
colony was effectively a Syracusan possession. On the other 

1 Thuc. VI.5.3. The significance of the two oikists cannot be determined. 
One might have come from Syracuse and one from Corinth, as Dunbabin 
suggests ( 1 05) ; for this procedure Zancle provides an analogy (Thuc. 1.4.5) . 
Berard (135) considers that they represented two different ethnic groups, 
and on this inference builds the hypothesis that Geloans took part in the 
colony. But the only support for this theory is that Gamarina lay between 
Gela and Syracuse. It might be thought that the presence of Geloans would 
account for the colony's revolt from Syracuse, but, if so, it is surprising that 
Gela refused to help Camarina in her war of independence (if it is right to 
attribute Philistus frg. 5, FGH III B p. 559, to this war, as Dunbabin 105 f, 
and Berard 135). Berard's hypothesis about the composition of the colony 
seems to be without support. 

2 For the date see schol. Find. 01. V.i6. 3 See Hdt. 11.154.3. 

4 Ibid.: UvQiyxoatoov de i\v KafjidQiva TO OLQ^OLOV. 

5 See Thuc. VI.88.I. 

6 Compare Thucydides 9 words di* anoaraaiv (1.5.3). 



Q^ COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

hand the oikists show that it was a properly constituted colony 
and it was capable of independent action against its mother city. 
Syracuse seems to have wanted to use Camarina, as she used 
Acrae and Casmenae, to spread her own power, but was evi- 
dently not so successful Acrae is some twenty miles from Sy- 
racuse, Camarina seventy. 1 If Acrae and Casmenae remained 
virtually outlying parts of the Syracusan state, and Camarina 
had a separate existence, although the Syracusan aims were the 
same in the three cases, it is tempting to see the reason for the 
difference in status in Camarina's greater distance from the 

mother city. 2 

Mylae in Sicily, which was founded in the late eighth century 
at a place some 25 miles from its metropolis Zancle, seems to 
have been a completely subordinate settlement, yet a separate 
community. 3 This status is no doubt to be attributed to the 
comparatively short distance from its mother city. 

It was seen earlier in this chapter that Epizephyrian Locri 
had two colonies situated close at hand, Hipponium and 
Medma. A third-century inscription from Delphi^ bestows prox- 
eny and other honours on one Demarchus, who is described as 
AyiidexcM $d(Jbra AOXQ&I 1% rtiv *Em[&](f>VQia)v 'Imtawiel* This 
description is rightly taken by Dunbabin (165) to show 'double 
nationality or rather . . . local qualification of nationality.' 
Apparently Hipponium was then scarcely distinguishable from 
the Locrian state. In view of the vicissitudes of the history of 
Hipponium and Locri, 5 we may also follow Dunbabin in assum- 
ing that this position was established at latest before the fourth 
century; for it is hard to see at what time in that century the 
two cities could have arranged such a relationship. Thus it 
seems legitimate to compare this evidence with earlier indica- 

1 For the sites see Berard 132, 134. 

2 Gf. Dunbabin, 105. Although the discussion here has been about the 
dependent colonies of Sybaris and Syracuse, this is not to deny that their 
empires included settlements of the native population; cf. Larsen RE s.v. 
Perioikoi 8312 f. However, such settlements are irrelevant to the present 
purpose. . 

3 I give the arguments and evidence for this conclusion together with 
relevant modern literature in Historia xi, 1 962, 249 f. For the foundation and 
dates see Berard 97 f and Vallet, Rhegion et %ande> 83 f. 

4 'Demarchus the son of Philotas, a Locrian of the Epizephyrians, a 
Hipponian.' Fouilles de Delphes III.i no. 176; for the date, c. 280, see notes 
to no. 1 68. 

5 See Head, HM 2 p. 100. 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 95 

tions about the status of Hipponium. In the latter part of the 
sixth century the Hipponians dedicated at Olympia spoils won 
in a war against Croton, which they fought in alliance with their 
sister colony Medma and mother city Epizephyrian Locri. 1 
This, like Thucydides' description of Hipponium as a colony 
( v -5-3-)> suggests at least separate existence. Thus different 
pieces of evidence show us a colony separate from its metro- 
polis, which could yet be regarded as virtually part of it. Such 
diverse indications are perhaps to be explained by the fact 
that Hipponium was only about thirty miles distant from Epi- 
zephyrian Locri. 2 

The island of Gythera 3 lies ten miles out to sea off the south 
coast of Laconia. There is no account of its settlement, but its 
historical population was presumably determined, like that of 
Laconia, by the invasions at the beginning of the Iron Age. 
Herodotus (1.82.2.) relates that it belonged to the archaic 
Argive empire, and the implication is that Sparta won it by the 
"battle of the champions' in 546.* The fullest description of its 
political position from that time onwards, apart from brief 
periods of control by non-Spartan masters, 5 is given by Thucy- 
dides, who writes (1.53.2.) that the inhabitants were Lace- 
daemonian perioikoi, and that a yearly magistrate was sent to 
the island from Sparta, together with a garrison. Cythera would 
seem from this description to be like a part of Laconia, Lace- 
daemonian territory inhabited by Lacedaemonian perioikoi. On 
the other hand Thucydides calls the people of Cythera colonists, 
apoikoi, of the Lacedaemonians in another passage (VII.57.6). 
In this passage Thucydides is drawing the island and its in- 
habitants into his large picture of the way in which the claims of 
kinship were ignored in the Syracusan campaign. In the former 
account he is giving a thorough description, which is for that 
reason much more likely to be precise and accurate. The people 
of Cythera were, therefore, Lacedaemonian perioikoi) yet Thucy- 
dides could think of them as apoikoi. The fact that Sparta sent 

1 See E. Kunze, 5. Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen in Olympia, 1938/9, 77~79 
(plates 24 and 25). 

2 For the site see Berard 212 f. 

3 The best collection of historical references to Gythera is in IG V.i p. 176. 

4 See CAH 111.569. 

5 E.g. by Athens in the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. IV. 54. 3); by the 
Confederates after its capture by Conon in 393 (Xen. HelL IV.viii.8). 



96 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

a yearly governor and kept a garrison 1 on the island also dif- 
ferentiates it from Laconia proper. It thus seems that the legal 
position of the island was in practice affected by the distance 
from Sparta and the sea passage, so that Cythera was in an 
intermediate position between a colony and part of the Lace- 
daemonian state. 2 

The evidence for the effect of distance on colonial relation- 
ships has shown that when colony and mother city were near to 
each other their relations were sometimes so close that the 
colony could almost be called an extension of the founding 
state. Even when this was not so, the mother city was often able 
to exercise very close control. It is notable that the examples 
range from very early times, in the seventh century, to the 
classical period. As a mother city of colonies at a short distance 
Thasos too exercised a strict political, and possibly also an eco- 
nomic, control, to the extent that her colonies were at times 
treated like parts of the Thasian state. Though these relations 
are not certainly attested before the fifth century, the fact that 
similar examples are found in earlier times suggests that Thasos 
may have exercised such control from the time when she first 
founded settlements on the mainland in the seventh century. 

As a colony Thasos' relations with her mother city were seen 
to be very close and friendly throughout her history. Although 
it seems wrong to interpret Akeratos' dedication and the 
honorary decree for Cephisophon as showing either isopolity 
or sympolity for certain, they both reveal a far closer bond than 
would be normal between two unrelated independent states. 
Paros and Thasos show that where communications between 
colony and metropolis were reasonably easy the lives of the two 
cities could remain interrelated, not merely to the extent of 

1 The governor and garrison were presumably those sent back to Sparta 
under truce by Conon; see Xen. loc. cit. Thucydides 5 words make plain that 
both governor and garrison were regular; this against Maull in RE s.v. 
Kythera, 216, who implies that the garrison was temporary, and Meyer, 
Theopomps Hellenika, 269 n. 3, who explains the probable presence of a 
harmost there in the fourth century (see IG V.i p. 176) by suggesting that 
Sparta was temporarily treating Cythera like other ex-allies of Athens. 
The office of Kytherodikes (Thuc. IV.53.2) is attested as late as the time of 
Hadrian; see Robert, Hellenica I. no. 

2 Other communities ofperioikoi were regarded as originally settled from 
Sparta; for a list and references see Niese, Nach. Gott. Ges.d. Wiss. y Phil-Hist. 
Klasse, 1906, 133 f; but Cythera seems the most striking and significant 
example for our purposes. 



THASOS AND THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE 97 

personal contacts, or wartime help, but even to the point where 
the legal division between the two states was slightly blurred. 
In this chapter we have discussed the many aspects of the re- 
lationship between colony and mother city on which the history 
of Thasos throws direct light, but it also raises, if indirectly, the 
question of mutual citizenship, which must be considered in the 
next. 



CHAPTER VI 

MILETUS AND THE QUESTION OF 
MUTUAL CITIZENSHIP 



s Tfjs n6Aea> eqya iafar\<;, p 

ds t& TthffioC, T&V OJTOMl&V. 1 

Strabo XIV. 635 

JUDGED by the number of its colonies Miletus was the 
J greatest of Greek mother cities. For though some of the more 
extravagant claims made in antiquity 2 have not been substan- 
tiated by modern investigations, 3 her colonies were far more 
numerous than those of any other Greek city. Tor', to continue 
Strabo's statement above, c the whole Pontus Euxinus was 
colonized by them, and the Propontis and many other places.' 
Literary evidence for her relations with her colonies, however, 
barely exists, and though commercial links may perhaps be 
implied by the predominantly East Greek pottery found on the 
sites of her Pontic colonies, 4 as a great trading city Miletus' 
commerce was very widespread, so that these commercial con- 
nections need not be regarded as special relations with the 
colonies. The name, or nickname, of her great men in early 
times, the aeivavrai* shows the interest of the aristocracy in 
overseas ventures, so that Glotz may not be going too far when 
he says that they directed colonization and trade. 6 It was no 
doubt always right to assume the existence of some relations 
between Miletus and her colonies, but precise evidence was 
lacking until it was provided by inscriptions. 

1 'This city's achievements are many, but the greatest is the number of its 
colonies.' 

2 Miletus founded 75 colonies according to Seneca (Cons, ad Helv. matrem 
7.2); 90 according to Pliny (N.H. V.U2). 

3 Bilabel reaches the number 45, but not all these are primary or certain 
or exclusively Milesian. 

* See R. M. Cook, JHS Ixvi 1946, 82. 

5 Plut. Q.G. 32. The arguments about this word and suggested meanings 
are set out by Halliday, Greek Questions of Plutarch, 146, who thinks it most 
probable that it was a nickname coined in party politics; for this view and 
other examples cf. Busolt, Griech. Staatskunde 1.2 1 1. 

6 The Greek City 68. 



MILETUS AND MUTUAL CITIZENSHIP 99 

Some of this epigraphic evidence, being of the Hellenistic 
period, 1 is too late for the present purpose; but there are three 
inscriptions, which fall just within the chronological limits of 
this study and provide valuable information. The most impor- 
tant one concerns Olbia, 2 and states the position about mutual 
citizen rights and other privileges reciprocally enjoyed by the 
citizens of colony and mother city. Olbia was founded from 
Miletus in c. 645. 3 

The inscription was dated to before 323 by its first editor 4 for 
a combination of epigraphic and historical reasons. There is a 
group of inscriptions, 5 all of the same period, which show an 
independent foreign policy at Miletus, and are regarded as 
emanating from the time when Miletus was freed by Alexander 
from Persian rule. This approximate dating has never been 
doubted. An attempt at a more precise date was made by 
S. A. Zhebeliov, 6 on the following argument. Miletus was freed 
in 332. 7 In 33 1 8 Olbia repulsed an attack by Zopyrion, Alex- 
ander's general, and introduced revolutionary measures during 
the siege, 9 which included the extension of citizenship to metics 
and the cancellation of debts. Zhebeliov (435) therefore con- 
cludes that our document has its natural place at a time when 
the metropolis had just returned to independence and demo- 
cracy, and the colony had just widened its citizenship and 
cancelled all debts. This ingenious argument yields the date 
c. 330, which is accepted by Tod. 10 It is, however, inevitably 
hypothetical, 11 so we should put the date of the inscription as 
certainly before 323 and perhaps about 330. 

I See above p. 2 n. 2. 2 Tod 195; Milet 1.3 no. 136. 

3 This is the Eusebian date; the earliest archaeological material discovered 
at Olbia is a little later; see R. M. Cook, JHSlxvi 1946, 84. For the Milesian 
origin see Hdt. IV. 78. 3, with whom all the other ancient authorities agree; 
see Bilabel 23 f. 

4 Rehm, Milet 1.3 p. 293. 

5 Milet 1.3 nos. 135, 136, 137 and the decree for Istria, published by S. 
Lambrino, Dacia III-IV, Bucharest 1927-32, 398. 

6 CR. Acad. des Sciences USSR (Glasse des Humanites) 1929, 429 ff. 

7 This is established by Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischen 
Grundlage, II. 201. 

8 The date is fixed by the fact that the news of Zopyrion's campaign is 
brought to Alexander just after the death of Darius (Justin. XII. 1.4), and 
Darius died in July 330; cf. Berve II. 128. 

9 See Macrobius Sat. Li 1.33. 10 See Tod II p. 270. 

II The main objection seems to be that Miletus made a number of such 
agreements at the same time, for this could be held to show that circumstances 



100 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

In a literal translation the agreement runs as follows: The 
following are traditional arrangements for the Olbiopolitans 
and Milesians. That the Milesian in the city of Olbia sacrifice 
like an Olbiopolitan on the same altars, and partake in the 
same public cults under the same conditions as the Olbio- 
politans. That the Milesian have exemption from taxation as it 
was formerly. That, if he wish to become eligible for office, 1 he 
is to come before the Council and be entered on the rolls and 
be liable to taxation 2 as other citizens are. That they (i.e. the 
Milesians) have the right of privileged seats at public gather- 
ings, of being announced at athletic contests and of praying at 
the festival of the rQubcades,* as they pray in Miletus. And that, 
if the Milesian have a law suit arising from a legal contract, the 
case shall be tried within five days at the public court. That all 
Milesians be exempt from taxation except those who in another 
city exercise citizenship, hold magistracies and take part in the 
courts. That, on the same terms, the Olbiopolitan be exempt 
from taxes, and the other arrangements apply in the same way 
to the Olbiopolitan in Miletus as to the Milesians in the city of 
Olbia.' 

The first point to notice is the bald beginning. From this 
Rehm drew the conclusion that relations between the two cities 
must have been very close; 4 this seems likely to be correct. It is 

at Miletus alone were sufficient reason for them all. We cannot say for 
certain, in the absence of any prescript, which state initiated our agree- 
ment. Danov's attempt (Bull. Sac. hist, de Bulgare xii~xxiv 1948, 180-202) to 
prove that it was Miletus from the analogy of the contemporary decree from 
Istria (see above p. 99 n. 5, headed MI [AHZION (restored by Robert, 
BCHlii 1928, 170 ff) , fails. The heading could, it is true, indicate the origin 
of the decree (as Robert loc. cit.), but it could also show the state to which 
the decree referred (on the headings of decrees see Larfeld, Griech, Epigraphik 
307). However, it is more probable that Miletus initiated all the agreements, 
if only because there were several at the same time, all involving Miletus. 
But the changes at Olbia could still have acted as an extra incentive for 
Miletus to confirm and publish the mutual arrangements as soon as possible, 
as Zhebeliov suggested (op. cit., 435). 

1 This seems to be the meaning of rt^ou^tW ,ueTe%M>; cf. Tod p. 271. 

2 svre^g is evidently here the opposite of drei^g (as Tod p. 272), though 
there appears to be no parallel for this significance (see Liddell and Scott 
s.v.). 

3 On this festival see Bilabel 138. Rehm (Milet 1.3 p. 291) thinks that it is 
specially mentioned because it is a celebration in which kinship was im- 
portant, and he may well be right. It was a festival of the dead; see Harpo- 
cration s.v. 

4 See Milet 1.3 p. 290. 



MILETUS AND MUTUAL CITIZENSHIP IOI 

also noteworthy that the first matter to be arranged is the re- 
ligious status of the Milesian in Olbia. A similar arrangement 
also came first in the foundation decree for Naupactus. 1 There 
the colonist's right to take part in cults was expressly limited. 
Here there is perhaps an implied limitation in the phrase 
'public cults', but it is easy to understand that the decree only 
admitted the Milesian to the public cults of the city. 

The position regarding citizenship is complex. Full citizen- 
ship in Olbia in the sense of eligibility for office was open to 
the Milesian; to have this privilege he had to undertake also 
the full duties of a citizen and became liable to taxation. On 
the other hand, if he was willing to deny himself this full 
citizenship, he had exemption from taxation and kept the other 
privileges, as, for example, an equal position with citizens in re- 
ligious matters and a privileged one on state occasions. The 
only Milesians who could not claim exemption from taxation 
were those who exercised citizenship in full in another city. The 
concept of citizenship in the agreement is close to Aristotle's 
definition of the citizen as one who had a share in justice and 
office, or, more simply, a share in office. 2 

The treaty is also reminiscent of Aristotle in its legal arrange- 
ments, for among the definitions of the citizen which he rejects 
(Pol. 1275 a 8 ff), is he who has the right c to defend an action 
and to bring one in the lawcourts.' 3 He objects that aliens 
have this right when there has been a treaty about lawsuits 
between the citizens of the two cities. 4 At Olbia too the Milesian 
could have his legal privileges without being a full citizen. 

On the other hand, the name of the court, drifjionnov diKac- 
TTJQIOV, has been taken to show 5 that it was the court for citizens 
as opposed to aliens. The description of the court is thought to 
imply, by contrast, a &VLKOV dixaatriQiov, one of the types of 
court listed by Aristotle (Pol. 1300 b 24). This is not a necessary 

1 See Chapter IV. 

2 [tsrdxew xQiaeax; xal dg^g, Pol. 12 75 a 24; xoivcovetv dgpfe, I277b 34; 
^ere^eiv rcov ripajv, 1278 a 36. 

3 dfocrp vns%ew KOLI dixafeadai,; the translation is Rackham's (Loeb). 

4 The nature of these cases, or Sinai ajto fu/f/fo'/lcov, has been discussed 
recently by Hopper in his paper 'Interstate Juridical Agreements in the 
Athenian Empire*, JHSbdii 1943, 35-5 1, and St. Groix CQ,n.s. xi 1961, 95 f. 

5 See Syll* notes to 286; Zhebeliov CR. Acad. des Sciences USSR (Classe des 
Humanites), 1929, 427 n. 4; Tod II p. 272; Liddell and Scott s.v. < 



102 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

inference, however, especially as the normal word for a court 
for citizens as opposed to aliens is dorwflfe. 1 The type of court 
need not, therefore, be interpreted as showing the Milesian's 
superior position to that of other non-citizens in Olbia. How- 
ever, the legal arrangement also is to be compared with the 
similar provision in the foundation decree for Naupactus, 2 the 
important difference being that in the Milesian document it is 
specifically cases arising from a legal contract that are provided 
for. 

The carefully detailed arrangements of the document show 
that this was not an empty exchange of honours, but rather of 
practical advantages expected to be used. The same conclusion 
follows from the concentration on liability for taxes, since this 
was no doubt the most important thing for ordinary citizens. 
Not only is taxation mentioned three times in the arrangements 
for the Milesians in Olbia, it is the only subject actually 
mentioned in the arrangements for the Olbiopolitans in 
Miletus. 

In the final clause complete reciprocity between the two 
cities is established. This was taken by Rehm 3 to show that the 
two cities had equal status, and this is clearly true in a legal 
sense regarding the privileges exchanged. On the other hand 
the document looks c at things primarily from the point of view 
of the colony 5 . 4 It appears that many more Milesians were ex- 
pected to reside in Olbia than Olbiopolitans in Miletus. But if 
this represents a right of the mother city, not unlike that de- 
duced from the study of foundation decrees, 5 the mother city 
was prepared to grant the same right to its colony. 

The decree is expressly a restatement of traditional practices: 
tads ndtqia *0hfiianohhau; nal Mifaja[f]ot (if); xaOdaaa KOI UQO- 
TSQOV fjcrav (5 f ). The dangers in general of using later material as 
evidence for earlier times have been noticed above in Chapter I, 
but in this instance the document's own statements and the 
character of its contents justify, or rather impose, the attempt 
to see what light it throws on past relations between Olbia and 
Miletus. Its references to the past are compared by Tod 6 with 
the frequent use of the phrase %ard ra ndtqia in the decree regu- 

1 See Liddell and Scott s.v. 2 See Chapter IV. 

3 Milet 1.3 p. 291. 4 Tod II p. 271. 

5 See Chapter IV. II p. 271. 



MILETUS AND MUTUAL CITIZENSHIP 103 

lating offerings to Eleusis. In arrangements concerned with 
religion past tradition had special sanctity. 

Analogies and express statements are, however, not alone in 
showing that the document contains real earlier practices. This 
is also suggested by what it does not say. When somewhat later 
Miletus granted the request of the people of Cius and extended 
her citizenship to them, the reason for her action is carefully 
stated: snsidr] Kidvoi anomoi ovreq rrJQ nohecoc; xrL 1 On that occa- 
sion new arrangements were made. In the decree about Olbia 
no reasons are given and there is no statement that Olbia is a 
colony of Miletus. We have seen that the tradition is quite 
clear that Olbia was founded from Miletus, and the references 
to traditional arrangements and the complete reciprocity of 
religious rights put it beyond doubt that this was the basis for 
the rights exchanged. The absence of statements to this effect 
therefore implies that they were unnecessary because the prac- 
tices were traditional and the basis for them well known. 

For all these reasons the express statements, the bald be- 
ginning 2 and the fact that the basis for the agreement is not 
stated the document may be confidently called a restatement 
of past practice. 

Unfortunately the attempt to date these practices more 
closely is hindered by the paucity of evidence for Olbia' s earlier 
relations to Miletus. Literary evidence is confined to Herodotus' 
statement (IV. 78.3) that the people of Olbia c say that they are 
Milesians'. 3 The question is whether this expression should be 
understood to mean anything more than that the colony's 
origin was Milesian. An example where the geographical prin- 
ciple determined the ethnic of people who could still be re- 
garded as Samians has already been noted. 4 If this analogy 
were to decide the question the form of expression reported by 
Herodotus could be regarded as exceptional and might even 
be held to show that the people of Olbia had remained Milesian 
citizens. But there is other evidence on ethnics which suggests 

1 e Since the people of Cius are colonists of the city (Miletus) etc.' Miht 1.3 
no. 141, i IF. The document is dated on epigraphical arguments to the third 
century. 

2 Cf. above p. 44. 

3 ol ds BoQvadsvelTai, (for the two names see Strabo VII. 306) o#rot keyovai 
GtyeoG avrovg slvai Mi^aiovg. 

4 See above p. 5 n. 7. 



104 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

that there was a fluidity in their use which means that the 
ethnic alone can hardly determine legal questions about 
citizenship. 

Some of this evidence relates to colonists of the first genera- 
tion, who are variously described by the ethnic of their old and 
their new home. One, Herodicus of Megara or Selymbria, has 
been mentioned already. 1 The most distinguished example is 
Herodotus, who is given in the sources the ethnic of either 
Halicarnassus or Thurii. 2 The sculptor Pythagoras, who emi- 
grated from Samos to Rhegium and is called a Rhegine by 
Pausanias, 3 signed himself HvOayoQat; 2dpio$ on the monument of 
Euthymus at Olympia. 4 Micythus of Rhegium and Messene 
also described himself by his old ethnics at Olympia, even 
though he was living at Tegea. 5 Praxiteles of Syracuse and 
Gamarina, who had lived previously at Mantinea, is punctilious 
in giving two ethnics on his dedication at Olympia. 6 Cleomenes, 
Alexander's satrap of Egypt, is called 9 A^avdq&6q in one source, 7 
though in all the others the ethnic of his original city is used 
(NavxQarhrjs}. These are ethnics of individuals, who could have 
been too proud of, or simply too accustomed to, their old homes 
to take exclusively to the name of the new. But they seem to 
show a freedom from legal considerations in the use of the 
ethnic. 

Examples more precisely analogous to Herodotus' passage can 
be found in Thucydides. In describing the foundation of Himera 
from Zancle (VI. 5.1) he writes Xahxidfji; JM&V ol nlslaroi ijWov, 8 
though there is a perfectly good ethnic from Zancle, ZayKhalcx;? 

1 Above p. 66. 2 See RE Suppl. II 205 ff., 224 ff. 

3 E.g. IV.iv.4. 

4 Inschr. von Olympia pp. 247 ff. The view of Seltman (Num. Chron. 6th 
series ix, 1949, 19 ff) that this Pythagoras was actually a grandson of the 
philosopher Pythagoras, not a first generation settler from Samos, and that 
the signature therefore reveals pride in ancestry, seems to involve too many 
hypotheses. 

5 Inschr. von Olympia no. 267 and notes; however, the expression fowscw 
ev Teydrj may show that he was not a citizen of Tegea. 

6 ... HvQaxofftog . . . %al KafJLaquvatoq' viQoada d& Mavnvsai . . . svaiev, 
see Jeffery, Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, Arcadia no. 120, p. 215. His two 
Sicilian cities are apparently to be explained by the transplantation of the 
population of Gamarina to Syracuse by Gelon; see Jeffery 160 f. 

7 [Arist.] Oec. ILssa. See Van Groningen's notes ad loc. in his edition 
(Leyden 1933). 

8 'Most of the settlers were Ghalcidians'. 
9 Seee.g. Hdt. VI.23.I. 



MILETUS AND MUTUAL CITIZENSHIP 105 

The reason why he chooses to say Chalcidians here is, however, 
clear. Himera was a mixed colony, and he is looking forward to 
his remarks about the Chalcidian customs and the mixture of 
Doric and Chalcidic in the dialect. So the general ethnic was 
more suitable for his particular purpose than that of the parti- 
cular Chalcidian city. Another example where his motive is 
again clear is his description of the Gorcyreans (11.57.7) as 
not only Dorian but manifestly Corinthian (KogivQiob aay&t;} in 
his list of the forces at Syracuse. They were manifestly not 
Corinthians legally, but they were by origin, and it is racial 
connections in which Thucydides was interested here. So where 
origin was the important matter, members of an old and inde- 
pendent colony could be given the ethnic of their mother 
city. 

These examples show that Herodotus could have been merely 
expressing origin by his wording. But while Thucydides' and 
the first generation settlers' use of the legally incorrect ethnic 
can be explained, there is no obvious explanation for Hero- 
dotus'. It is just possible, therefore, that his choice of words (or 
that of the people of Olbia themselves) was dictated by the 
close relationship between colony and mother city. 1 

If inferences from Herodotus' words are uncertain and other 
evidence for the relations of Miletus and Olbia is lacking, the 
only safe way of estimating the antiquity of the arrangements 
recorded in the inscription is to consider how recently they 
could have been in force. 2 It may be assumed that the treaty 
was necessary because these arrangements had been in abey- 
ance. The most obvious reason for this would be the Persian 
control of Miletus. 3 From the time of Cyrus' conquest of Lydia, 
c. 546, to the time of our treaty, Miletus was free from Persia 
only during the Ionian Revolt and as an ally, first of Athens, 
and secondly, for a brief period, of Sparta. 4 In view of this the 
most recent period to which the document could be referring 

1 Bilabel (137) considered that it showed pride in origin and good 
relations. 

2 This seems better than simply to assume that they had existed since the 
colony's foundation, as Zhebeliov (CR. Acad. des Sciences USSR, Classe des 
Humanites, 1929, 428, 435). 

3 Cf. Rehm, Milet 1.3 p. 293. 

4 See REs.v. Miletos 1594-1602 for a useful summary of its history during 
these years. 



106 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

seems likely to have been the second half of the fifth century, 
when Miletus belonged to the Athenian Empire and had re- 
covered sufficiently from the Persian destruction of the city in 
494. 1 But it may be argued that Athens itself would not have 
tolerated such connections. 2 If we accept this argument, we 
must suppose that the document restates arrangements of the 
time before the Persian conquest. It would not be totally un- 
realistic to put them so early, for the sixth and seventh centuries 
were Miletus' great days as a commercial centre, 3 and the pro- 
vision regarding lawsuits refers especially to cases likely to arise 
from commercial relations. 4 But while it is not impossible that 
the document describes relations which existed more than two 
hundred years before, it is clearly much less open to objection 
to think of them as practices of the fifth century, the time when 
Herodotus reports that the people of Olbia say that they are 
Milesians. These would be sufficiently old to have become 
traditional arrangements in c. 330. 

There is a theory that Scythians formed an important ele- 
ment in the ruling class at Olbia, which would make shared 
citizen rights with the mother city in the fifth century or earlier 
less easy to envisage. The theory is expressed in Russian litera- 
ture on the subject 5 but the evidence for the classical period 
does not support it. The philhellene Scythian ruler Scyles, who 
had a house in Olbia, is quite obviously an exceptional figure, 6 
and in any case he was not a member of the ruling class there. 
The fifth-century graves of local Scythian type 7 in the Olbia 
necropolis certainly show that there were some Scythians in 
Olbia, as one would expect, but the prosopographical evidence 8 
removes the possibility that they were among the important 

1 See Rohlig, Der Handel von Milet, 61. 

2 It was Athenian policy to keep her allies isolated according to the Old 
Oligarch; see [Xen.] Ath. Pol II.2 f. 

3 See RE s.v. Miletos 1590 IF for this period. 

4 This is not to suggest that examples of arrangements for such cases are 
attested so early. 

* See p. 54 of D. B. Shelov's general survey, Antichni Mir v severnom 
Prichernomorye, Moscow 1956. 

6 See Hdt. IV.yS ff. 

7 For a publication of one of these and references to analogous material see 
S. I. Kaposhina, Sovyetskaya Archeologia XIII 1950, 205 ff. 

8 This is very usefully assembled by T, Knipovich, Materiali i Issledovaniya 
po archeologi SSSR no. 50, 136 ff. 



MILETUS AND MUTUAL CITIZENSHIP 

citizens. 1 Of the names preserved on inscriptions from the sixth 
to the fourth centuries, only four are non-Greek, and among the 
names of magistrates none. 2 The relations of Olbia with the 
Scythians do not therefore enter into the question of her rela- 
tions with Miletus. 

The decree of the same period regulating relations between 
Miletus and Cyzicus 3 is unfortunately incomplete. Cyzicus was 
a Milesian foundation 4 of great antiquity; Eusebius records its 
foundation against two dates, 757 and 675, which may be 
reconciled by regarding the later expedition as a reinforcement. 
The earlier date has been indirectly supported by recent ex- 
cavations which show that there were Greeks inland at Das- 
cylium by c. 7oo. 5 The preserved part of the decree contains 
two provisions about relations between Miletus and Cyzicus: 
firstly (10 f ) that the cities are to be friends for ever according 
to the traditional laws, 6 and secondly that there should be full 
isopolity between them. 7 This isopolity is also stated to have 
existed in the past, if the restoration xa66r[i xal ngoreQov fjcrav 
is correct; it is a regular formula 8 and fits the sense well. 

We thus have another restatement of past practices between 
Miletus and one of her colonies. The arrangement that the 
cities should be friends for ever is a little less clear in its meaning 
and value than that about citizenship. Colonies and mother 
cities were expected to be friends, not enemies, as has been 
seen; 9 this seems merely to provide for such a relationship. 10 
However, Cyzicus and Miletus were not so far apart that inter- 
national relations of war and peace were out of the question 

1 There is naturally no evidence that they were citizens at all. One won- 
ders if they might have been mercenaries, for the graves are poor and simple 
and seem to belong to warriors; see Kaposhina op. cit. 207, 212 f. 

2 This is pointed out in refutation of Shelov by A. S. Kotzevalov in his 
review; see Vestnik Institutapo Izucheniyu SSSR 2 (30) (Munich) 1959, 116. 

3 Milet 1.3 no. 137. 

4 For the evidence see Bilabel 46 f. 

5 See Akurgal, Anatolia I 1956, 24; cf. my remarks in Bulletin of the Institute 
of Classical Studies v, 1958, 32. 

6 rag {lev noheiQ (plhac; elvai eg rov anavra %@6vov Kara, ra ndrqia. 

7 elvai de rov Kv&xyvov ip Mdrjrcoi, Mdrjmov noi rov Mdrjcnov ev KV&XCQI 
Eut>M,r\v6v (13 ff). 

8 Gf. the similar phrase (6 f) in the treaty with Olbia. 

9 See Chapter V. 

10 The meaning of <p/Aog is shown firstly byits being coupled with <;v/^a%og; 
see e.g. Dem. IX.323; a friend was less than an ally. And secondly by 
Xenophon's use of it as the antonym of nohsjMoi; (Hell. VI.v.48). 



I0 8 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

(with Olbia they presumably were), and circumstances un- 
known to us may have urged them to make their friendly 
relations a matter of legal provision. The isopolity here is com- 
plete and unconditional, so that in this respect too there is a 
contrast with the Olbian arrangements, 

In some respects, however, the treaties are more closely com- 
parable. Once again there is no mention of the tie between 
colony and mother city, but the reference to tradition and the 
fact that Cyzicus was well known to be a Milesian colony 
justify the conclusion that this relationship was the basis for the 
mutual rights and there was no need to mention it. The argu- 
ments which were applied to the question of the date of the 
arrangements said to have existed in the past in the agreement 
with Olbia also apply here. At latest in the fifth century, and 
possibly considerably earlier, Milesians had citizen rights in 
Cyzicus and vice versa. The treaty with Cyzicus is less detailed 
and practical than that with Olbia, and thus seems less con- 
vincing in its statements about the past, but detailed conditions 
may have been included in the part now lost. It is permissible 
to speculate whether there appeared among these a provision 
for the regular offerings which we find Cyzicus making to 
Apollo of Didyma in Hellenistic times. 1 

The decree referring to Istria 2 is much less informative, for 
only parts of the opening lines are preserved. These belong to 
the introduction, so that the purpose of the decree is not cer- 
tainly known. Istria was a Milesian colony founded according to 
the tradition in 657/6. 3 This fact and the analogy of the other 
Milesian decrees led Robert 4 to interpret the whole document 
as a decree of isopolity between Miletus and Istria, and to re- 
store the opening lines accordingly. This interpretation seems 
plausible, though it cannot be called certain. If Robert is right, 
it is interesting that much more justification was necessary in the 

1 See Haussoulier, Milet et le Didymeion, p. 200, no. 2853, 8 f; p. 202, no. 
2855, i8f; p. 203, no. 28585 8 f; p. 206, no. 5, 10 f; p. 209, no. 10, 17 f. The 
offerings are always the same and always Trom the Gyzicenes*. We know 
too that such offerings were imposed as a regular duty on Cius from the 
third-century inscription Milet 1.3 no. 141; cf. p. 315. 

2 See above, p. 99 n. 5. 

3 The earliest literary reference is Hdt. 11.33.4. The sources are given by 
Bilabel (19). 

4 SeeC#lii 1928, 172. 



MILETUS AND MUTUAL CITIZENSHIP ICQ 

opening lines than in either the Olbian treaty or that with 
Cyzicus: 'since the Istrians are friends and kinsmen of the 
people and preserve the formerly existing . . . friendship to- 
wards the people'. Just because it is more full this introduction 
implies that relations between Miletus and Istria had been less 
close. The reference to friendship may be compared with the 
arrangement for friendship in the treaty with Cyzicus. 

The evidence about Olbia and Gyzicus shows that Miletus 
had arrangements of isopolity with these colonies at latest in the 
fifth century and possibly earlier. Does this suit the character of 
Milesian colonization? Herodotus calls the Greek cities of the 
northern Pontus emporia on several occasions. 1 He was therefore 
very conscious that they were trading centres. As we saw at the 
beginning of this chapter, Miletus' trade with these cities may 
be attested by the archaeological finds. The importance of the 
trade between Greece and the hinterland of the north Pontic 
coast is well known from the fifth century onwards, 2 and it is 
noteworthy that Miletus 5 colonization of this coast comes com- 
paratively late in the Greek colonizing movement. 3 Her single 
much earlier foundation in the Black Sea, 4 Sinope, was situated 
on the south coast at a place not very suitable for trade, 5 and 
should be regarded as a colony of the normal Greek type, in 
which the settlers could hope to support themselves from the 
natural resources. 6 By the mid-seventh century Greek com- 
merce was sufficiently developed for a leading city like Miletus 
to be conscious of trading possibilities, so that scholars are prob- 
ably justified in seeing the colonization of the north Pontic coast 
as a clear example of colonization for commercial ends. 7 Roe- 
buck's conclusion that Ionia needed to import grain from the 

*E.g. IV.iy.i; 20. i; 24; 108.2. Gf. above p. 5 n. 3. 

2 Cf. Herodotus' description (VII. 147. 2 f ) of the corn ships passing 
through the Hellespont seen by Xerxes. For the fourth century see Rostov- 
tzefT, Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World I 105-1 1 1. 

3 I discuss the dates of Greek colonies in the Black Sea in Bulletin of the 
Institute of Classical Studies v 1958, 25 ff. 

4 See ibid. Trapezus also has a high foundation date, but it is a colony of 
Sinope. 

5 Gf. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor I. 185 fF, where it is noted that 
Amisus has better communications with the interior. 

6 Sinope was especially famous for fish; see Magie 1.184; II. 1076. 

7 See, e.g., Gwynn, JHS xxxviii 1918, 95; E. G. Minns, Scythians and 
Greeks, 439 if. 



110 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

early seventh century 1 supports this interpretation. The mother 
city thus had a strong interest in maintaining close relations and 
it would not be surprising if mutual citizenship and other 
privileges were arranged early between Miletus and her colonies. 

We may now turn to the evidence about mutual citizenship 
and allied topics which comes not from Miletus but from other 
Greek cities. We have already noted 2 that it seems to have been 
common practice for mother cities to be able to send in further 
settlers to their colonies. This right to reinforce implies, where 
it existed, that citizens of the mother city were considered 
entitled to citizenship in the colony if they settled there. 

The right of colonists to return to citizen rights in the mother 
city also emerged from the study of foundation decrees. 3 Apart 
from Hesiod's father, 4 the earliest event recorded which throws 
light on the exercise of this right is the refusal of the Eretrians 
to allow their colonists to return after they had been driven out 
of Corcyra. 5 We do not know how long they had been settled in 
Corcyra, so it is impossible to say whether they had a limited 
right of return which had become invalid, or no right of return, 
or some right of return which the men of the mother city 
violated. At least the account shows either that there was not 
an unlimited right of return, or that the mother city was not 
prepared to acknowledge such a right. 

In the Gyrene decree 6 the colonists were allowed a grudging 
right of return even though the settlement was intended to re- 
lieve dangerous overpopulation at home. But in such cases the 
metropolis would be unwilling to respect the right in practice, 
and at Gyrene we are expressly told that the colonists were not 
allowed to land when they tried to return. 7 In the easy circum- 
stances of the colony to Naupactus very generous conditions 
were laid down for the colonists' return, but an unconditional 
right to return was still withheld. It is also a probable assump- 
tion that the right of return was limited to the first settlers. 

1 Ionian Trade and Colonization 21. 2 In chapter IV. 

3 See chapter IV. 

4 Works and Days 630-40; but the passage cannot be used as evidence for an 
actual relationship between a colony and mother city; the uncertainties are 
too many: e.g. Cyme's relationship to Boeotia (Strabo, XIII.62I, says that 
Aeolic Cyme was founded from the Locrian mountain Phrikios, above 
Thermopylae), and the standing of Hesiod's father in Cyme and in Ascra. 

5 Plut. Q.G. XL See Appendix I. See Chapter IV. 
7 Hdt. I V.i 56. 3. 



MILETUS AND MUTUAL CITIZENSHIP III 

This was obviously so at Gyrene, and is implied at Naupactus 
by the wording of the decree. 1 

This evidence suggests that the colonist did not retain any 
automatic or permanent right to citizenship in the mother city. 
It is also unlikely that all colonies were in all circumstances 
bound to receive the citizens of the mother city. The right of 
the mother city to reinforce the colony must have been physic- 
ally impracticable in many instances, where the land of the 
colony was strictly limited. 2 However, if mother cities and some 
colonies possessed the right to exclude the citizens of the other 
community, evidence for the reception of fugitives and exiles 
suggests that they might be prepared to waive it in case of need. 

The earliest instance is the reception by Corcyra of the 
Bacchiad exiles from Corinth, who were expelled by Cypselus 
when he became tyrant in the middle of the seventh century. 3 
This is an example where the exiles were political enemies of the 
government of the metropolis, so it is possible that political 
motives lay behind the action of the colony, which would make 
this instance a special case. But without further information it 
is vain to conjecture precise motives. 

Next in time comes the reception by Massalia and Alalia 
of refugees from their metropolis Phocaea. The assumption 
that refugees from Phocaea were received by Massalia is made 
to explain the discrepancy between Massalia's well-attested 
foundation date, c. 600, and the tradition 4 that it was founded 
by those who fled after Phocaea was captured by Harpagus in 
c. 545. As both accounts are well-supported, the conclusion has 
been generally accepted that the colony was founded in 600 but 
reinforced by fugitives in 545, and if this is right we see a colony 
receiving fugitives from its metropolis. It is surprising, however, 
that Herodotus says nothing about it in his full account of 
Phocaean wanderings (1.164 fF), especially as he provides the 
evidence for their reception at Alalia, a colony founded twenty 

1 See Tod 24, 7 ff. 

2 Gf. the limitation of the right at a settlement in West Locris; see Chapter 
IV. 

3 Nic. Dam. frg. 57.7 (FGH IIA p. 357). The relations of Corinth and 
Corcyra are discussed below in Chapter VII. 

4 See e.g. Isoc. VI.84; Axist. frg. 549, (apud Harpocration s.v. Massalia) ; 
Timagenes frg. 2 (FGH IIA p. 320). The discrepancy is fully treated by 
Wackernagel; see RE s.v. Massalia 2130 f. 



H2 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

years before (1.165.1). In this instance the small gap in time 
would mean that ties of blood and sentiment would still be 
strong, and the numbers of the fugitives may have been too large 
for the colonists to keep out, but they were certainly received on 
friendly terms and lived with the previous settlers for five years,, 1 
until the Etruscans and Carthaginians forced the abandonment 
of the colony. 2 

Not much later than these events 3 some fugitives from Gyrene 
were probably received by Thera. When Arcesilaus III re- 
gained power at Gyrene he sent his enemies to Cyprus to be 
destroyed; but they were rescued by some Gnidians and sent to 
Thera. 4 Herodotus' silence about their subsequent fate may be 
taken as an indication that they were received into their mother 
city. 

An inscription found at Olympia, 5 containing a decree of 
Selinus, not only testifies to the reception of exiles from the 
metropolis, 6 but also shows some of the regulations made for 
their status. It is unfortunately incomplete, but that this was its 
purpose is clear. 7 The inscription is to be dated to the turn of 
the sixth and fifth centuries, over 100 years after Selinus' 
foundation from Megara Hyblaea in c. 628.* 

The arrangements that can be identified in the decree refer 
to financial 9 and legal matters. 10 These provisions are also made 
to apply to the descendants of the exiles. 11 It appears that one of 
the financial provisions arranged for some guarantee to safe- 
guard the city if the exile returned to his homeland. 12 It also 
appears that at least two waves of exiles had arrived, and the 

l Hdt. I.i66.i. 2 Hdt. 1.166.2. 

3 Chamoux, Cyrtne sous la monarchie des Battiades, 151, calculates that 
Arcesilaus* exile and recovery of power fall between 530 and 525. 
4 Hdt, IV. 1 64. i f. 5 Inschr. von Olympia, 22. 

6 Whether Megara Nisaea or Hyblaea is uncertain, though the latter 
seems more likely; see Dunbabin 417 f, who notes that quarrels between 
the rich and the people are reported in Megara Hyblaea by Herodotus 
(VIII. 156.2). It is also more probable that the number of exiles apparently 
postulated by such a decree would come from the Sicilian city, as the editors 
suggested in their notes to the inscription. But the example is even more 
striking if the exiles were from the distant Megara Nisaea. 

7 Gf. Dunbabin's discussion, loc. cit. 8 Thuc. 1.4.2. 

9 Frgs. ^ 5 if, ii f; dtf if. 10 Frgs. ab 8; def$. 

11 Frgs. ab 12, 14 f. 

12 Frgs. ab 1 1, 9. This depends on the restorations of the editors. Of these 
sn]avlro) is certain, so that the possibility of return seems definitely to have 
existed. 



MILETUS AND MUTUAL CITIZENSHIP 113 

firstcomers were not bound by oath regarding several of the 
matters arranged by the decree, 1 

We note that special arrangements for the exiles' status were 
necessary; they do not simply take up citizen rights in the 
colony. This is the more surprising since the residence envisaged 
for them may be long; provisions are made to apply to the 
second generation. The exiles seem to be condemned to a 
position different from that of citizens for a very long time. 
However, the reason for this may have been the possibility that 
they might return to their original city. They may have con- 
stituted a group separate from the citizens of their new city. 

This may also explain the striking fact that a decree regu- 
lating domestic affairs should be set up at Olympia. Treaties of 
international importance were often displayed there, 2 but they 
are hardly comparable. However, another Sicilian city, Zancle, 
set up a decree there in the sixth century, 3 and another inscrip- 
tion contains exactly similar local regulations concerning the 
reception of exiles in some Chalcidian city. 4 Our decree is thus 
not without parallel. The reason why such a decree should be 
exhibited at Olympia may be that the exiles, if they belonged 
fully to no city, felt their position to be more secure if it was 
established by a decree set up at a Panhellenic religious centre. 

The need for such legal provisions about the status of the 
exiles might suggest that the ties between colony and mother 
city had grown looser during the comparatively long time since 
the colony's foundation, though it may be that the first wave of 
immigrants were received more freely on an ad hoc basis, which 
the decree replaced. 5 But this is all conjecture. The value of the 
document, however uncertain its exact contents, is that it is the 
only primary evidence that has been preserved of the way in 
which the status of exiles from the metropolis could be regulated 
in a colony. 6 



1 Frgs. <fc/s ff. 

2 See Gardiner, History and Remains of Olympia, 1 12. 

3 Inschr. von Olympia 24. 4 Inschr. von Olympia 25. 

5 If it is right that the first group was not bound to observe some of the 
provisions of the decree, as may be inferred from frgs. def 5 ff. 

6 A second example might be seen in the fragmentary bronze plaque of 
uncertain Sicilian provenance which mentions the Gamoroi (Jeffery, Local 
Scripts of Archaic Greece., 268 (no. 15)). But it is uncertain whether, as has been 
suggested (see Dunbabin 415; Guarducci, Annuario d. ScuoL arch. d. Atene, 
n.s. xxi-xxii 1959-60, 254-258), the document is to be connected with the 



114 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

When Sybaris was destroyed by Croton in sn/io, 1 Hero- 
dotus relates (VI. 21.1) that the fugitives went to Laus and 
Scidrus. The first of these was the chief Sybarite colony after 
Posidonia. 2 Scidrus was a less important city and is assumed, 
almost certainly rightly, to be a Sybarite colony. 3 They were 
probably both dependents of Sybaris, 4 and the large number of 
fugitives from the dominant mother city could, no doubt, insist 
that place be made for them in their subject colonies. These are, 
in consequence, not very good examples of colonies receiving 
fugitives from the mother city. 

Posidonia, however, was probably independent of its mother 
city. 5 Early in the fifth century the coinage of Posidonia changes 
to the Achaean standard, and the bull, the traditional badge of 
Sybaris, appears regularly as the type on the reverse of its 
coins. Macdonald suggested 6 that the reason for this was that a 
sufficient number of Sybarite refugees had been received there 
to form a sort of synoecism, and this seems very plausible. There 
are some further coins of Sybaris or Posidonia 7 which could be 
held to show that the result of the synoecism was something like 
sympolity. Some have the types of Posidonia but the legend of 
Sybaris, others are similar but bear both Sybarite and Posi- 
doniate inscriptions. The interpretation of numismatic evidence 
standing alone like this is bound to be uncertain, 8 but these 
various coins seem to reflect an unusual mingling of mother 
city and colony. 

expulsion of the Gamoroi from Syracuse and their refuge in Gasmenae 
(Hdt. 11.155.2). In any case Gasmenae, as a dependent of Syracuse (see 
Chapter V), had presumably no choice in the matter. 

1 Full account in Dunbabin 362 ff. 

2 See Strabo VI.253; Dunbabin 155 f. 3 See Dunbabin loc. cit. 

4 See Dunbabin 82 f, 155 f, and Chapter V above. 

5 See Chapter V. 6 Coin Types 1 15. 

7 For these see Head, #JV 2 p. 85. 

8 Thus Head explained the latter group as alliance coins, which proved 
that Posidonia helped in the recolonization of Sybaris. The late Dr. Charles 
Seltman, who kindly discussed the coins with me, objected to this that an 
alliance coinage should contain large denominations, while the examples 
extant are very small. Seltman's own explanation, however, by the analogy 
of Pyxus, which would make them coins of Posidonia (see Num. Chron. 6th 
series, ix, 1949, 2) is unsatisfactory, because the analogy is not exact. The 
attractive suggestion that the small bird on one of these coins is a Blue 
Stone-thrush and commemorates the help given to Sybaris by Laus, whose 
emblem it was (see JHS Ixxxi 1961 47 f) implies that the coins are com- 
memorative in purpose. 



MILETUS AND MUTUAL CITIZENSHIP 115 

Neapolis (Naples) was considered a colony of Cumae, 1 and 
when Samnites took the latter city in c. 420, the inhabitants fled 
to Neapolis where they met a friendly reception. 2 They were 
very near to their colony, and also sufficiently numerous, it 
appears, to form a new settlement, 3 but in spite of these special 
factors, this seems a valid example of the reception of fugitives 
from the metropolis by the colony. 

While it is true that it was generally recognized in Greece 
that it was a pious and praiseworthy act to receive fugitives, 4 
these examples concerning colonies and mother cities show the 
way in which the relationship between the two communities 
made it possible for citizens of one to transfer to the other. They 
are thus comparable with the examples discussed above of the 
colonists' right to return and the right of the metropolis to rein- 
force in being evidence of practices related to isopolity. At 
Posidonia the reception of a large number of fugitives may even 
have produced a fifth-century example of sympolity, but this is 
uncertain. Within the time limits of the present study there 
remains one further example of isopolity between colony and 
mother city. 

Epizephyrian Locri was founded by the Locrians of Greece in 
c. 673. 5 Polybius states (XII.s ff ) that the colony was founded 
by thieves, vagabonds, etc., and cites Aristotle as support, but 
Dunbabin finds reasons to prefer Timaeus' account that it was 
a properly established colony of respectable people. Timaeus' 
account, as Polybius (XII. 9) has reported it, included the in- 
formation that he was shown among the Locrians of Greece 
decrees establishing isopolity between colony and metropolis 
(xad 9 a Ttofat&iav vndq%siv BKatsqoiq nag sxarsQo^}. 

Polybius thought that Timaeus was simply lying about these 
matters, but his reasons are slight. He suggests that Timaeus' 
failure to specify the Locrian city in which he saw the decrees 
shows that he had fabricated them. But, as Berard pointed out 
(204), if Timaeus did not distinguish the Locrians to which he 
was referring, it was because he agreed with Aristotle on this 

1 See Strabo .246; Livy VIII.22.5. 

2 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. XV.6; cf. Strabo .243, Diod. XII.76.4. 

3 See RE s.v. Neapolis, 2115; CAH 11.594 f. 

4 Cf. Eur. Suppl. the thought behind 112 ff, 184 ff; Heradidae 329 f; 
Soph. O.C. 261 

5 Full account and sources in Dunbabin, 35 fF. 



Il6 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

point; for we know from Polybius that Timaeus was criticizing 
Aristotle's account; and Aristotle implies that the colony was 
founded from Opuntian Locris. 1 A positive reason for believing 
that Timaeus did see these decrees is that he was famous for 
finding and copying such documents. 2 

There is a more serious objection in Polybius' statement that 
he had been told that there was no memory or record of such 
treaties in Epizephyrian Locri. 3 Memories on matters of this 
sort were not short in Greek cities. A convincing explanation is 
to hand, however. A particularly ferocious revolution took place 
in Epizephyrian Locri in c. 346 after its rule by Dionysius the 
Younger. 4 In the revolution it seems that the records and fun- 
damental laws of the earlier, aristocratically-ruled, city were 
destroyed or perverted. 5 This attempt by the revolutionaries to 
discredit the rule of their predecessors, and to cut off the city 
under its new constitution from its history under the old, may 
well have included the destruction of the records of relations 
established in the earlier period between the city and its metro- 
polis. 

If accepted, this suggestion provides the terminus ante quern of 
346 for the decrees. 6 Probably it should be as early as 356, 
when Dionysius fled from Syracuse and became tyrant of 
Locri, 7 since treaties of isopolity between the colony and its 
metropolis seem unlikely to have been made under his rule. If, 
on similar reasoning, they are thought to precede the reign of 
Dionysius I at Syracuse, during which the relations between 
Syracuse and Locri became close, 8 the date of the decrees is put 

1 See Berard 204. Opus is said to have been the metropolis of Epize- 
phyrian Locri by Ps-Scymnus (3 1 6 f ) , and Pausanias 5 information (III. 19.12) 
that the Italian Locrians appealed for help in war from Ajax, son of Oeleus, 
'owing to their kinship with the Opuntians 9 is, if not decisive, further sup- 
port for this view. 

2 See Polybius XII. 11, especially the words xal ^v 6 rag omadodo/tovg 
aryAag %al tag sv ralg <pfaaig r&v vscov nqo^eviag efevQrjx&g Tfaaiog eari. 

* XII. 6: awdrjxat 6s agog rovg Kara rqv e EMd6a Aoxgovg otir* fjffav o#r 9 
lAeryovro nag* avroig yeyovvai. 

4 A full account of this is given by Oldfather; see RE s.v. Lokroi 1336. 

5 For instance, Oldfather considers that the unlikely story of the origin of 
the Hundred Houses was then invented in order to discredit the rule of the 
aristocracy; see RE loc. cit. 

6 The date of the decrees is not recorded, but Timaeus' lifetime, c, 346- 
260 (see OCD s.v. Timaeus), provides a certain, if approximate, terminus 
ante quern, 

7 See Oldfather, 1335. s See Oldfather, 1335 & 



MILETUS AND MUTUAL CITIZENSHIP II) 

back into the fifth century. These arguments are at best only 
probable, but it is not unreasonable to say that the decrees 
which Timaeus saw show that isopolity existed between 
Epizephyrian Locri and her metropolis not later than the first 
half of the fourth century. 

In the previous chapter it was seen that there was no un- 
equivocal evidence for sympolity or isopolity between Thasos 
and her mother city or Thasos and her colonies. Some evidence, 
however, especially Akeratos' dedication, 1 suggested at least 
relations close enough to approach such shared citizenship. 
Miletus certainly had isopolity with her colonies of Olbia and 
Cyzicus, which, though only definitely attested rather later, 
should probably be dated to the fifth century or even earlier. 
Colonies close to the mother city sometimes occupied an ill- 
defined position between separate communities and outlying 
parts of the founding state. Various arrangements for citizens of 
one community to transfer to the other are found early, and are 
signs that even in early times there was no rigid barrier against 
opening the citizenship of one community to citizens of the 
other. The precise statement of the Naupactus decree that the 
colonist should lose his old citizenship, 2 and inferences from the 
evidence about the right to return, seem to show that shared 
citizenship was not normal in ordinary colonization. But the 
evidence about Miletus, Thasos, the colonies at a short distance, 
and the practices which approximate to shared citizenship, 
shows that isopolity was an easy development in the relations 
between colonies and mother cities, once the concept had been 
evolved. 

1 See Chapter V. His magistracy at Paros might be compared with the 
Milesians' right to become magistrates at Olbia. 

2 See Chapter IV. 



CHAPTER VII 
CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 



al yovv ahhai dbromat TIH&GIV ?J^ag (sc. rovg Kogwdlovg) 
xal fidhara vnb anoixcov cfreQyo^sOa. 1 Thuc. I. 38.3. 



CORINTH'S relations with her colonies are more fully docu- 
mented than those of any other Greek city apart from 
Athens in the fifth century. This is, no doubt, partly due to the 
chances which have determined what sources are available for 
Greek history, but it also shows the importance of these rela- 
tions in Corinthian affairs. The colonies with which these im- 
portant relations were maintained were the foundations of the 
tyrants and the two great pre- tyrant colonies of Syracuse and 
Corcyra. 2 We have already seen 3 that the colonies of the tyrants 
were established as dependent colonies of the mother city. Now 
the subsequent relations between Corinth and these colonies 
need to be examined in order to see how far Corinth maintained 
a colonial empire and what status the colonies enjoyed. To this 
subject most of the present chapter is devoted. After that 
Corinth's relations with Syracuse and Corcyra and Corcyra's 
relations with her colonies will be discussed in two further 
sections, as both are important for our understanding of 
Corinthian colonial practices and Greek colonial empires. 

The Corinthian colonial empire* 

The colonies which seem relevant to a discussion of the 
Corinthian colonial empire are the four whose foundations have 
been treated above, Leucas, Ambracia, Anactorium and 

1 c At least the other colonies honour us (i.e. the Corinthians), and we are 
especially beloved by colonists. 9 

2 Corinth's relations with Megara might also appear to be relevant; I 
discuss these in Appendix IV. 

3 In Chapter III. 

4 I follow the traditional dating of the Cypselids (c. 655-^. 582). A 
defence of these dates against Beloch's drastic lowering (Griech. Geschichte 
1.2,274 ff) was given by Wade-Gery (CAHIII 764 f), and Will's additional 
arguments in favour of Beloch's hypothesis (Korinthiaka 406-420) are not 
convincing. 

n8 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 

Potidaea, Apollonia in Illyria which was founded jointly with 
the Corcyreans, 1 and three lesser settlements, Sollium, Chalcis 
(in Aetolia) and Molycrium. Information about these last is 
meagre, and is almost confined to brief descriptions by Thucy- 
dides. Sollium is called KoQivOlcov nofaa/ta (11.30.1), Chalcis 
KoQivQlcDV nofav (1.108.5) and Molycrium ryv KogwOlcov caioiKiav 
(III. 102. 2). The site of Chalcis at the western end of the Corin- 
thian Gulf is known, 2 and Molycrium, whatever its exact posi- 
tion, was in the same region, 3 but Sollium can only be con- 
jectured to have been on the mainland opposite Leucas. 4 There 
is no information about the dates at which they were settled, 
but modern scholars have regularly included them in the same 
expansion of the Cypselids, which established the better known 
Corinthian colonies in the area. 5 

The very phrase Corinthian colonial empire recalls Kahr- 
stedt's study 6 of these eight dependent colonies. In this he 
assembled the main evidence on the topic and advanced the 
bold theory that the colonies were no more than outlying parts 
of the mother city, their citizens no different from citizens of 
Corinth. His work has strongly influenced and still dominates 
the views of some ancient historians. Thus Hampl used some of 
his arguments to reach a different conclusion: the colonies were 
separate states but Corinth owned their land; 7 and he is fol- 
lowed by Gschnitzer. 8 Without occupying such extreme posi- 
tions Will merely cites Kahrstedt's arguments and accepts in 
principle his main conclusion. 9 My own discussion is therefore 
necessarily often concerned with the refutation of Kahrstedt's 
mistaken conclusions. 

The evidence about the status of the colonies is of three kinds: 
express information of a political nature from ancient sources, 
coins, and the expressions used by Greek authors to describe the 
colonies. Not all Kahrstedt's arguments from this evidence need 

1 The sources are given and discussed below pp. 130 f. 

2 See Gomme, Commentary to 1.108.5. 

3 See Gomme, Commentary to 11.84.4. 

4 See Gomme, Commentary to 11.30.1. 

5 See e.g. RE s.v. Sollion 932; Gomme, Commentary to III. 102.1; Will, 
Korinthiaka 520. 

6 Das korinthische Kolonialreich in Griech. Staatsrecht 1,357 ff- 

7 Klio xxxii 1939, 39 fF. 

8 Abhdngige Orte im griech. Altertum ch. 23. 

9 See La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 413 ff, especially 414 f; Korinthiaka 522 f. 



120 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

to be reconsidered, for several are either quite mistaken or in- 
sufficiently considered. For example the passage Thuc. 1.55.1 
(xal T&V KsQXVQalcov oxraxoGiovg jusv ol tfaav dovhoi cutsdovro 
(sc. ol KoqivQioi) xrh.} is understood by Kahrstedt (359) to show 
that the Corcyrean settlers in Anactorium had kept Gorcyrean 
citizenship, from which he infers that the Corinthian settlers 
there possessed Corinthian citizenship. But this passage does 
not refer to inhabitants of Anactorium at all, but to Corcyrean 
prisoners taken at the Battle of Sybota, as is perfectly clear if 
the sentence is read in its surrounding context. Kahrstedt's 
treatment of the evidence from the coins of the colonies may 
also be left on one side. It is clear that in the fourth century the 
Corinthian pegasus was adopted as a coin type very generally in 
the West for commercial reasons, even by cities with no political 
connections with Corinth. 1 So the fourth-century use of the 
pegasus coin type cannot be taken, as it is by Kahrstedt (363), 
to show relations between the colonies and Corinth. It is also 
perhaps sufficient to indicate the absurd conclusions to which 
Kahrstedt is forced by his thesis in order to discredit it in 
general. Thus he has to maintain that Molycrium and Potidaea 
were in theory rebels from Corinth because they were allies 
of Athens (362), and that Corcyra had given up its existence as 
a separate state because Corcyreans took part in Timoleon's 
expedition (363). His use of the expressions with which the 
colonies are described by ancient authors cannot, however, be 
dismissed quite so summarily. It is especially in this part of his 
work that Kahrstedt has been followed by other scholars. 2 

These expressions describe some of the colonies as e a city of 
the Corinthians' or the like, and were taken by Kahrstedt to 
show that the colonies were simply part of the Corinthian state. 
There are four instances, one from Demosthenes (IX-34) and 
three from Thucydides: IV-49, 11.30.1, and 1.108.5, referring 
severally to Anactorium, Sollium and Chalcis. Although exact 
parallels to these expressions are not found in Thucydides, a 
detailed study of his terminology (which may be assumed to be 
more exact than Demosthenes 3 ) seems to show that confident 
generalizations about the legal status of all Corinthian colonies 

1 See Head, HN* pp. 406 f, for all the cities which issued pegasi; and 
Macdonaldj Coin Types> 83, for their commercial significance. 

2 As Will, Korinthiaka 522 f. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 121 

should not be made from the three descriptions. They show that 
the three cities were, in an undefined way, in Corinth's power, 
but the analogies provide no justification for the conclusion that 
they or the other colonies were legally part of the Corinthian 
state. 1 

Outside Thucydides' own work, the most illuminating an- 
alogy of the right date for his expressions is Herodotus' des- 
cription of Stryme as a city of the Thasians (Oaaloov noh^ 
VIII. 1 08). The status of the mainland colonies of Thasos has 
been described already. 2 They were under very close political 
control by the mother city, but were apparently not simply 
parts of the Thasian state. But before further analogies are 
applied, other evidence on the status of the Corinthian colonies 
must be considered. 

Any discussion of the relations between Corinth and her 
colonies must include the evidence from coins, for some of the 
colonies struck coins identical in weight and type with those of 
the mother city, and distinguished from them only by the dif- 
ferent ethnic. 3 As has been seen, coins with the Corinthian 
pegasus as their type were widely issued in Western Greece, 
Sicily and Magna Graecia in the fourth century. The reasons 
for this can be shown to have been purely commercial, 4 so that 
no conclusions about connections with Corinth can be drawn 
from the fact that a city adopted the pegasus in the fourth cen- 
tury. We must therefore confine our attention to the three 
Corinthian colonies which issued pegasi from early in the fifth 
century: Leucas, Ambracia and Anactorium. 

In his very detailed study of the coins of Ambracia, 5 which 
must be the basis for any conclusions about the coins of these 
colonies and their significance, 6 Ravel has shown (20 ff) that 
the first pegasi of Ambracia were issued about 480, and (82 f ) 

1 For a detailed study of these and analogous expressions in Thucydides 
see my paper Historia xi 1962, 246 ff. 

2 In Chapter V. 3 See Head, HN 2 p. 406 f. 

4 See especially Macdonald, Coin Types, 83. 

5 The Colts ofAmbracia, New York 1928, in the series Numismatic Notes and 
Monographs. 

6 It is therefore unfortunate that Will has not seen Ravel's book (see La 
Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 416 n. 4 and Korinthiaka 524 n. 3) ; as a result he simply 
includes the evidence from the coins in his accounts of the Corinthian 
colonies, without discussing exactly what this evidence means; see La 
Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 416 and Korinthiaka 524. 



122 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

that among these earliest coins there are some which were 
struck from dies also used for coins of Corinth. As Ravel 
rightly concludes (ibid.), these coins must have been struck at 
Corinth. Thus the earliest coins of Ambracia were not only, 
except for the initial A, identical with those of the mother city, 
but some at least were actually made there. When this infor- 
mation is combined with the fact that the early coins of Am- 
bracia are very rare/ it is natural to infer that Ambracia used 
Corinthian coins before 4805 and to a great extent for a con- 
siderable time after that date. The question raised by the 
coinage of Ambracia (and, it may be assumed, of Leucas and 
Anactorium) has therefore two aspects: the use of the metro- 
polis' coins, and the issue of coins identical with those of the 
metropolis. 

Because of their character coins can have both commercial 
and political significance, and those under discussion can be 
interpreted from both these points of view. As the simpler the 
commercial aspect may be taken first. Throughout the history 
of Greek coinage, but especially in early times, it was not un- 
common for the coins of one city to be used by others. The 
'turtles' of Aegina were, for instance, the common currency of 
the Peloponnese in the early period. 2 In the archaic period, 
when mints were still comparatively few, the colonies in the 
North- West would naturally prefer to use the famous pegasi of 
Corinth than a less acceptable coinage of their own. It may be 
that Sollium, Chalcis and Molycrium never issued coins for the 
same reason. 3 Similar motives might also be expected to lead to 
the copying of an established coinage, 4 and it is notable that 
Ambracia was careful to distinguish her coins from those of 
Corinth by no more than a single letter, the initial A. 

So the commercial significance of the coinage of the colonies 
seems easily understood. Their commercial connections were 
such that the currency most acceptable to them was that of 
Corinth. Ravel's discoveries make it possible to go somewhat 
further. If these colonies not only used Corinthian coins and 

1 See Ravel 82 f. 

2 See Head, #JV*p. 395. Cf. also the 'owls' of Athens, which spread all 
over the ancient world; see Head, HN Z pp. 373, 377. 

3 Though their small size would also partly account for it, as Kahrstedt 
361. 

4 Though such copying by Greek states is not generally found. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 123 

copied Corinthian coins, but even had some at least of their 
first coins made at Corinth, it is reasonable to conclude that 
they had very close commercial and personal connections with 
the mother city. 

The political interpretation of the colonies' coinage is more 
difficult. This is partly because no generally valid rules can be 
established for the political interpretation of Greek coins. Thus 
if the right to issue silver coins is thought to be an undeniable 
sign of autonomy, 1 these coins may be taken to show that the 
colonies were independent. If, on the other hand, identity of 
type and standard is interpreted as revealing a political con- 
nection, the coins show that the colonies were connected to 
Corinth in a subordinate position. 2 If generalizations lead to 
such an ambivalent interpretation of the coins, the basis for 
such generalizations must be examined. 

It is not difficult to show that from the fifth century one of the 
restrictions which could be imposed on the autonomy of a 
Greek state was to prevent it from issuing its own silver 
coinage. 3 The clearest example is the famous Athenian cur- 
rency decree, 4 which attempted to establish the coins of Athens 
as the sole silver coinage in the Athenian Empire. The corollary 
of this that if a city issued silver coins it was autonomous is 
probably true of the later Greek world. The issue of coins was a 
matter of political prestige, as may be seen from the agreement 
between Mytilene and Phocaea to issue coins in alternate years 5 
(in this case of 'gold', i.e. electrum). This is a commercial 
agreement, involving the use of the same coins by two cities, 
but it is necessary to establish strict equality in the issue of the 
coins: otherwise, it may be presumed, their status as indepen- 
dent cities was thought to be impugned. 

But this evidence is from the early fourth century. 6 Early in 
the fifth Leontini was reduced to subjection by Hippocrates of 

1 As Macdonald, Coin Types, 10. 

2 This has been the common interpretation; see e.g. Will, Korinthiaka 524; 
Kahrstedt 361* 

3 It is interesting to note that the evidence about the rights of coinage 
collected by Gardner (A History of Ancient Coinage 36 ff) all relates to 
restrictions of the right to issue coins. 

4 A TL II D.I4- For a discussion of its date and effect see Robinson, 
Hesperia Suppl. VIII.32O ff. The date remains a matter of dispute, but does 
not affect the argument here. 

5 Tod II 1 12. 6 See Tod II p. 34. 



COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Gela. 1 It may be assumed that it continued to be subject to his 
successor, Gelon. 2 Yet Leontini was able to issue silver coins 
during this period inscribed with its own ethnic. 3 It follows that 
the issue of silver coins does not prove independence. 4 

The coins of Leontini are also relevant to the second general- 
ization: that identity of type and standard, or of type alone, 
reveals a political connection; for one of the types on these coins, 
a quadriga, is the same as Gelon's own coins of Syracuse and 
Gela. 5 The type of a Greek coin was originally the symbol of the 
state that issued it like a seal or badge 6 so that the adoption of 
the same type by another city should imply a political con- 
nection. However, as coinage became common, and various 
motives influenced the choice of type, the immediate connection 
between a single type and a single state was often lost, 7 It is 
therefore wrong to argue a priori that the use of identical types 
by different states is politically significant. The coins of Leon- 
tini show that identity of type can reveal a political connection, 
but we have already seen that in the fourth century the Corin- 
thian type was adopted by other states for commercial reasons. 8 
This discussion of generalizations shows that they cannot be 
universally applied, so we must have recourse to more precise 
analogies for the coins in question. 

Since the coins were issued by colonies, they should be com- 
pared first with Greek colonial coinage in general. The practice 
of Greek colonies regarding their coinages differed; some 
adopted the types of the metropolis, others did not. Gardner 
attempted to promulgate a general rule to account for this 
difference. 9 Of the colonies founded before the invention of 
coinage few, if any, adopted the types of the mother city, but 
those founded after the invention did so. The validity of this 

1 See Hdt.VII.154.2, where the word dovhoatfvr) is used to describe 
Leontini's position. Dunbabin (383) shows that it was probably ruled by 
one of Hippocrates' officers as a subordinate tyrant. 

2 As Dunbabin 418. 3 Head, jFfJV 2 148 f. 

4 Ghantraine's interesting hypotheses about close personal connections 
between the rulers of Gela/Syracuse and Leontini do not affect this formal 
argument; see Jahrb.f. Nundsmatik u. Geldges. viii 1957, 7 ff. 

5 See Head, HN 2 p. 140. 

6 See Seltman, Greek Coins*, 28. 

7 See Macdonald, Coin Types, 71 f. 

8 See above pp. 120 f. 

9 See A History of Ancient Coinage, 44 ff. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 125 

rule depends on a fairly high date for the earliest Greek coins, 1 
but it is probably true in general. 2 The types of coins became 
part of the nomima which the colonists would take over from the 
mother city. 3 On this rule Gardner explained the difference 
between Corcyra and Syracuse on the one hand, which did not 
adopt Corinthian types, and the later colonies which did. There 
is perhaps some truth in this explanation. But the coins of Am- 
bracia, Leucas and Anactorium do not merely bear a Corin- 
thian type; they are as near as possible identical with the coins of 
Corinth. They seem to require, therefore, more explanation than 
Gardner's rule about colonial coinage provides. 

Among actual coins there are two very close analogies to the 
coins in question. Some of the early coins of Dicaea, an Eretrian 
colony, are the same in type and weight as those of the mother 
city, and are only distinguished by a different inscription. 4 
These coins are approximately dated to the first half of the fifth 
century. 5 However, at the same period Dicaea also issued coins 
with different types 6 so that her coinage is not exactly parallel 
to that of the Corinthian colonies in question. It is also, un- 
fortunately, impossible to make any firm statements about 
Dicaea's relations with Eretria. Neither the site of Dicaea 7 nor 
its foundation date are known. It is only the evidence from the 
Athenian tribute lists that confirms that it was an Eretrian 
colony. 8 

Thus the coins of Dicaea, though exactly analogous to those 

1 A general lowering of the dates of the early silver coins of Greece was 
proposed by Brown (Num. Chron. 6th series, x, 1950, 177$ cf. Schweiz. 
Munzblatter iv 1953, 49 if). However his arguments are often weak, 
especially those from historical probability, and those from stylistic paral- 
lels in other branches of art are inevitably uncertain. He is rightly criti- 
cized on these points by Will, Korinthiaka 489 n. 3. 

2 It is clearly not of universal application. Perinthus, for example, 
founded from Samos c. 600 (see REs.v. Perinthos 805) does not use Samian 
types. However, it did not strike coins till the fourth century; see Head, 
HN Z p. 270. 

3 See Chapter I. . . 

4 For descriptions of the coins see Head, HN* 213; the close similarity 
with those of Eretria is well shown by Seltman's illustrations, Greek Coins* 

* 6 See Head'loc. cit.; Seltman 67. 6 See Head toe. cit. 

7 See ATLI Gazetteer s.v. AMcuonokTrat 'JEQergtcov fotoueoi on this point. 

8 See ATL I Register s.v. In order to distinguish its contributions from 
those ofAtxaia na$ "Aftfajga, they are described in the earlier lists as from 
AixaionoMrai 'EQfXQicw anoixoi. Later the description was simpler: Ainaia or 



126 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

of the Corinthian colonies, contribute little to their interpreta- 
tion. A second close analogy may be found in the sixth-century 
coins of the Boeotian League. 1 The coins of the several cities 
have the same type, the Boeotian shield, and are identical in 
every other way, except that they bear different letters, the 
initials of the various ethnics. 2 The coins are so alike that they 
have been thought to emanate from a single mint. 3 In the fifth 
century, after the Battle of Coronea, Thebes seems to have 
monopolized the right to issue coins for Boeotia, and her coins 
at that time also bore the Boeotian shield as their main type. 4 
From this it might be argued that the earliest, anepigraphic, 
coins bearing this type were Theban, 5 and that in their slightly 
later coinages the other cities of Boeotia were copying the coins 
of Thebes, except for the initial letters of the ethnic. In this case 
the parallel with the coins of the Corinthian colonies would be 
exact. But as it is likely that the earliest Boeotian mint was at 
Tanagra, 6 it may be that the earliest, uninscribed, coins bore a 
common type of Boeotia, which Thebes later assumed as hers 
alone. However this may be, the actual coins are so closely 
similar in character to those of Corinth and her colonies, that 
the political arrangements which lie behind the coins must be 
considered. 

Our certain knowledge of the early Boeotian League is 
strictly limited. 7 The best indication of its nature is Herodotus' 
account of the Corinthian arbitration in Thebes' dispute with 
Plataea (VI. 108.5). The y laid it: down that edv ypatavs 
Boioyt&v roix; JLITJ fiovhojuevovQ eg Boicoroix; rsMscv. 8 It may be 
inferred from this that there was Theban hegemony but 
the member states could theoretically decide for themselves 



V. The temptation to regard the latter description as 
parallel with Thucydides' terms for the Corinthian colonies discussed above 
should probably be resisted. The earlier fuller description implies that the 
later Ainaia 'EQevQtcov was shorter formula adopted for convenience only. 

1 For descriptions see Head, HN 2 pp. 343 ff ? but Seltman's more recent 
account, Greek Coins* 55 f, is slightly different. 

2 Some are illustrated in Seltman PL V. 

3 Gf. Seltman 55. 4 See Head, HN 2 p. 349- 
6 As they are classified in Head loc. cit. 

6 See Seltman loc. cit. 

7 The evidence is given in Busolt/Swoboda, 1412. 

8 'The Thebans are not to interfere with those of the Boeotians who do 
not wish to count as Boeotians.' 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 127 

whether or not they would belong to the league. It is not cer- 
tain that they kept freedom and equality when they did become 
league members. 1 In two passages of Thucydides (II. 2.4; 
IIL66.i) it is strongly implied that there was a regular form of 
alliance traditionally laid down for the league states, and in a 
perhaps tendentious justification for their actions against 
Plataea (III.6i,2) Thucydides makes the Thebans claim that it 
was laid down at the beginning, when they founded Plataea, 
that Thebes should have hegemony, and that the Plataeans 
were transgressing traditional laws when they turned to Athens 
for help. The Theban contention that it was an offence against 
traditional laws to make an alliance outside Boeotia, combined 
with the remark about Theban hegemony, may be taken to 
mean that Thebes claimed as a traditional right control over 
the foreign policy of Boeotian states. 

Both the extent of Theban control and the date (and perhaps 
the existence) of the traditional laws on which it was based are 
uncertain. But the dispute with Plataea, probably in 519,2 shows 
that Thebes was asserting definite control at that time. This is 
approximately the date of the coins under discussion. These 
coins were therefore issued by states closely connected in a 
league under the control of Thebes. If the coins have political 
significance, 3 these are the circumstances they reflect. As has 
been stated, the coins themselves are exactly analogous to those 
of the Corinthian colonies in being identical except for the 
initials of the different ethnics. They may even originally have 
been made at one mint, as the early coins of Ambracia were 
made at Corinth. It can therefore be said that if the only 
evidence for the status of the Corinthian colonies in question 

1 Ehrenberg notes that the constitution of the league of the fifth century 
(see HelL Ox. XI) strangely and artificially combined Theban supremacy 
with the claim to equality of status of at least the most important other 
states; see Der Staat der Griechen 1,94. The autonomy of the league states has 
been assumed because they had the right to issue coins; as, for instance, by 
Martin (La Vie Internationale en Grece des Cites, 41) and Busolt/Swoboda 
(141 1 ). It has been seen that this assumption cannot automatically be made 
from coins in the sixth or fifth centuries. 

2 The date is not certain; see CAH IV. 78. 

8 It is possible that common origin and cults could lead to the adoption of 
a common coin type; cf. Busolt/Swoboda 1409 ff. But the other evidence for 
political, in addition to racial and religious, connections, suggests that the 
Boeotian coins should not be divorced from the political circumstances of 
the Boeotian states. 



I2 8 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

were their coins, they would be assumed, on the closest analogy 
available, to be connected in a political union under the con- 
trol of Corinth. 

Of the three kinds of evidence used to establish the status of 
these colonies two, the expressions employed to describe them 
and the coins, have now been discussed. There remains the 
express information of a political nature from ancient writers. 
In some of their statements the precise political implications are 
hard to establish. In the first place the word fattafiw in the 
passage Thuc. .30.2, where the Corinthians want to receive 
back Sollium and Anactorium, was added by Kahrstedt (358) 
to the evidence which he interpreted as showing that the 
Corinthian colonies were part of the Corinthian state. The 
legitimate conclusions from the word may be found by com- 
parison with other Thucydidean statements about exchange of 
territory at the same period. 

In the Peace of Nicias territories to be given back (&nod<Svrcw) 
to the Spartans include the island of Atalante, Pylus, Cythera, 
Methana and Pteleon. 1 Atalante was an island off Hypocnemi- 
dian Locris, previously uninhabited, but taken and garrisoned 
by the Athenians in 431 . 2 It is clear that it is not legally part of 
Sparta's territory. Of the other places only Pylus and Cythera 
could be so described. 3 They are all territories which belonged 
in some way or other to the Peloponnesian side, and which 
Athens had captured in the war. Sollium and Anactoriurn were 
in the same category. 4 The word anelapov is thus exactly com- 
parable to (wodovTcov and has the same general significance. 

Other passages referring to Anactorium are not clear in their 
implications. We have seen that Kahrstedt was entirely mis- 
taken in applying the latter part of the passage Thuc. 1.55. 1 (the 
phrases after sn ofaov} 5 to Anactorium. But the preceding state- 
ments deserve attention. The Corinthians, as they sailed home 
after the Battle of Sybota in 433, took Anactorium by a trick 
and established Corinthian settlers in it. In explanation of their 
action Thucydides adds in parenthesis ty M xowov 



1 Thuc. .18.7. 2 Thuc. 11.32. 

3 On Cythera see Chapter V. It is uncertain which Pteleon is meant; see 
Gomme Commentary ad loc. 

4 See Thuc. 11.30.1; IV.49- 

5 The punctuation in the Oxford Text is questionable; a colon, or even 
a full stop, after OMOV, would seem more appropriate than a comma. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 129 

uai sxslvaiv. If these genitives are like those noted above, 
Anactorium was in some degree a common possession of Cor- 
cyra and Corinth. The Corinthian capture of it turned it into a 
possession of Corinth alone, KogwOtcov nofav (IV.4g). But the 
concept of a city which was a joint possession of Corcyra and 
Corinth is not easy, and is perhaps only to be understood by 
comparison with the situation in other states of the same area in 
the same period. 

The most obvious analogy is Leucas. In no source is Leucas 
called anything but a Corinthian colony. Yet Plutarch relates 
(Them. XXI V.i) that Themistocles was called in to arbitrate 
between Corcyra and Corinth concerning their right to Leucas, 
and decided that Corinth should pay a fine of twenty talents and 
that they should own Leucas in common as a colony of both 
(Aevnada noivfl vepsw dj^yoreQcov Sjtoixov} . Plutarch's information 
may be accepted as reliable, for Thucydides apparently knew 
of the same event. 1 It could be assumed from Plutarch's passage 
that Leucas was a joint foundation of Corcyra and Corinth, for 
the fine shows that the Corinthians were legally in the wrong, so 
that Corcyra must have had some good claim to a share in the 
control of the island. The foundation of Leucas is attributed 
generally to Cypselus, as has been seen, 2 but Plutarch makes it 
a foundation of Periander (de sera num. vind. 552 E). This 
difference may be reconciled by making Periander's action a 
reinforcement. 3 If this is correct, the Corcyrean element could 
well have been introduced then, when Corcyra was under 
Periander's control. 4 

Whether or not this is the right way to explain Corcyra's 
rights over Leucas, it seems clear that the compromise arranged 
by Themistocles, whatever its exact arrangements, 5 did not 
last. Such shared rights of control or possession could hardly be 



1 See 1.136.1, where Themistocles flees to Corcyra, &v avrcbv 

It is true that the scholiast gives a different interpretation: Themistocles had 
prevented the league from sailing against those Greeks who had not fought 
against the Mede, who included the Corcyreans. But this is perhaps too 
general an action to make him svsQyerrjg of Gorcyra. 

2 In Chapter III. 3 As in RE s.v. Leukas 2238. 

4 See Chapter III. 

5 Kahrstedt (358) took Plutarch's words to show the legal position that 
he postulates for the colonies. But it is probably wrong to press the words of 
an author like Plutarch, who is hardly likely to have had a precise idea of 
legal status in mind. 



130 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

other than difficult in practice, and Corinth apparently suc- 
ceeded in ousting Corcyra entirely; as will be seen, in the 
Peloponnesian War Leucas was an enthusiastic ally of Corinth. 
This Corinthian success may well account for the unanimity 
of ancient writers in naming Corinth alone as the mother city of 
Leucas. 

Even though the details are unknown and the conjectures 
may be wrong, it is reasonably certain that Corinth was trying 
to gain sole control of Leucas in the early fifth century, and had 
succeeded in doing so by the time of the Epidamnus dispute. 1 
Similar Corinthian behaviour may be observed at Apollonia in 
Illyria. This colony was a joint foundation of Corinth and 
Corcyra according to Strabo (VIII.3i6) and Ps-Scymnus (439). 
Thucydides describes it (1. 26.2) simply as KogwOicov cutoixlav 
and the note in Stephanus Byzantinus (s.v.) only mentions 
200 Corinthians under their oikist Gylax. Pausanias on the 
other hand makes Corcyra alone its metropolis (.22.4), The 
date of the foundation may be calculated as c. 600. 2 

Apollonia's first coins, which were issued about the middle of 
the fifth century, 3 are as exactly like the coins of Corcyra, as 
Ambracia's, for instance, are like those of Corinth. 4 Further- 
more, the first coins of Corcyra to bear an inscription were 
issued at the same time as these coins of Apollonia and the first 
coins of Epidamnus, which are similar, 5 It appears likely that 
the three cities had all used Corcyra's coins before this time, and 
it was only necessary to put an inscription on Corcyra's coins 
when the colonies began to issue identical coins for themselves. 
The situation seems, therefore, to have been exactly parallel to 
that of Corinth and her colonies. If it was right to attribute 
more than commercial considerations to their coinage, it is also 
legitimate to assume that Apollonia was closely connected to 
Corcyra in the middle of the fifth century. 

However, the other evidence about Apollonia suggests a con- 
nection with Corinth. This was worked out by Beaumont. 6 The 

1 When the Corcyreans attack it; see Thuc. 1.30.2. 

2 See the convincing discussion of R. van Gompernolle, Antiquite Classique 
xxii 1953, 50-64. 

3 See Head, HM Z p. 314. 

4 Compare e.g. BMC (Thessaly) Plates XXI, 14, 15 (Corcyra) and XII, i 
(Apollonia) . 

5 See Head, #JV 2 p. 315. JHS Ixxii 1952, 65. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 13! 

people of Apollonia dedicated at Corinth, in the second half of 
the fifth century, some of the spoils taken at Thronium. 1 
Beaumont dated this to 435, and concluded from it that Corin- 
thians had taken part in the campaign and that Thronium had 
been reduced to secure the land route to the south, so that 
Corinth would be free from Corcyrean interference in her 
communications with Illyria. This is conjecture, and the offer- 
ing of some of the spoils at Corinth does not prove that Corin- 
thians had helped in the conquest of Thronium, but it seems a 
reasonable suggestion and suits the fact that Apollonia was 
clearly friendly to Corinth at this time, since Corinthian forces 
were able to use the land route through Apollonia's territory on 
the way to Epidamnus. 2 

As this last piece of information proves good relations be- 
tween Corinth and Apollonia in 435, whether or not Beau- 
mont's conjecture is accepted, and as the coins show that 
Apollonia's relations with Corcyra were close at an earlier date, 
it seems probable that in this mixed colony too Corinth had 
succeeded in asserting her control. Such an assumption may 
explain the fact that the early coins of Apollonia, in contrast to 
those of Epidamnus, are very rare; 3 their issue may have ceased 
shortly after it began, when the Corinthian connection became 
dominant. 

If Corinth did effectively oust Corcyra from her connection 
with Apollonia, this may explain the discrepancies in the 
accounts of Apollonia's foundation mentioned above. While it is 
true that Thucydides should be given greater authority than the 
other writers, the Corcyrean connection which they attest is so 
strongly supported by the evidence of the coins that it seems 
wrong to reject them. Beaumont, who does not mention the 
coins, assumed that the colony was originally purely Corinthian, 
and the Corcyrean element drifted in later. 4 This is unlikely in 
general in view of the exclusiveness of Greek cities, and Apol- 
lonia's practice of expelling foreigners (gevrjAaola} 5 seems to 
make it particularly improbable there. Altogether it is better to 
conclude that the variations in the sources reflect Corinth's 
success in asserting sole claim to the colony. 

1 See Paus. V.xxii.3 f; cf. Inschr. von Olympia 692. 2 Thuc. Ls6.6. 

3 See BMC (Thessaly) p. xxxix. 

4 JHS Ivi 1936, 1 68 n. 66. 5 See Aelian V.H. XIV. 16. 



132 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

If Corinth had successfully removed Corcyra from her footing 
in two mixed colonies at this period, the bitterness of the dispute 
about Epidamnus is easily intelligible. Although there had been 
Corinthian settlers at the foundation, 1 Corcyra was unquestion- 
ably the mother city, 2 so that it was even more intolerable for it 
to pass into Corinth's control than Apollonia or Leucas. The 
Corinthian action in acceding to the Epidamnian request and 
accepting the colony 3 would seem part of a general Corinthian 
plan to increase her control in the North West at Corcyra's 
expense. 

It is in the light of these other instances that Corinth's treat- 
ment of Anactorium, and Thucydides' description of it, should 
be seen. Like Leucas the sources call it a Corinthian colony 4 
but a Corcyrean element must be inferred; Thucydides alone, 
in the words under discussion (1.55.1), provides evidence of 
Corcyrean participation. As at Leucas, and on the same argu- 
ments, 5 it could be reasonably conjectured that Corcyreans were 
introduced by Periander, when he had control of Corcyra. 6 The 
early coinage has been discussed above, and may be taken to 
show, on the arguments there put forward, that Anactorium 
was closely connected to Corinth both commercially and 
politically. 

While the coinage implies that Anactorium 3 s position was 
similar to that of Ambracia and Leucas, the military assistance 
that they gave to Corinth suggests a considerable difference. 
For the Sybota campaign Ambracia supplied 27 ships, Leucas 
10, and Anactorium one. 7 It is true that Anactorium was a lesser 
naval power tham Ambracia and Leucas. In Thucydides' list of 
the allies of the Peloponnesian League Anactorium is not one of 
those that supplied ships, unlike Leucas and Ambracia 
(ILg.2-3). Similarly Herodotus relates (VIII.45) that Am ~ 
bracia supplied ships against the Persians, but there is no 
mention of Anactorium. Even so, Anactorium is worth men- 
tioning as contributing to Cnemus' naval forces as well as to his 



1 Thuc. 1.24.2. 2 ibid.; cf. above p. 31 n. 2. 

3 Thuc. 1.25.2. * See above p. 30 n. 3. 

5 See above p. 129. 

6 Gomme makes a similar suggestion (I.ig5f); but his statement that 
Gorcyra was under Corinthian control in the reign of Gypselus is unsup- 
ported by evidence. 

7 Thuc. 1.46.1. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 133 

army in 429, 1 so it is at least possible that the very great dif- 
ference between Anactorium's contribution at Sybota and 
those of Ambracia and Leucas reflects the fact that Corinth's 
connection was less firmly established with Anactorium. 

Such a conclusion must in any case be drawn from the fact 
that there was a considerable anti-Corinthian party at Anac- 
torium before and during the Archidamian War. In 435 the 
Corinthians had to capture the city. It has been suggested 2 that 
this shows that Anactorium had come over to the Athenian side, 
perhaps as a result of Phormio's expedition to the North- West, 
mentioned but not exactly dated by Thucydides (II. 68.7). But 
this seems improbable. In such circumstances Anactorium 
could hardly have provided even one ship against Athens' ally, 
and Thucydides gives one reason only for the Corinthian need 
to capture the city (1.55.1), that it was a shared possession of 
Corcyra and Corinth. An anti-Corinthian party remained in 
Anactorium even after the Corinthians captured it, for in 425 
the Athenians and Acarnanians took the city by treachery. The 
passage of Thucydides in which this is described, IV.4Q, was 
another piece of evidence used by Kahrstedt (358 f) to show 
that the inhabitants of Anactorium were Corinthian citizens. 

It is unfortunate that the important sentence is textually cor- 
rupt. The general sense is that Acarnanian settlers occupied the 
place. The reading of the OCT is nal inne^avrBQ [KoQwdlov$] 
avrol ' *A%aQvavs<; olutfroQat; OTTO ndvrow ec?%ov TO #coHo?>. The 
scholiast read olxtfroQas and is supported by some manuscripts, 
while the rest read olxiJTO()s$. If olx^roQag is accepted on the 
evidence of the scholiast, it is governed by no verb; Dobree 
therefore excluded KogwOiovt; and rendered the sentence logical. 
The variant on otxrjroQou; suggests strongly that KoqivQlovt; had 
come into the text, presumably from a marginal note, owing to a 
misunderstanding of the force of exm/tyavrei; in this sentence and 
a reminiscence of the passage 1.55.1, where the Corinthians 
established KoQwOlovs olnriroqaq in the city; for the change to 
olMJroQes would make the sentence logical including Koqivdiovq. 
If the reading of the OCT is correct, the passage IV.49 says 
nothing about the inhabitants of Anactorium, except that some 
of them were prepared to betray the city to the Athenians and 
Acarnanians. Kahrstedt's conclusion from the passage that the 

1 Thuc. 11.80.3. 2 By Beaumont, JHS Ixxii 1952, 62 f. 



134 COLONY AND, MOTHER CITY 

inhabitants of Anactorium were Corinthian citizens is thus at 
best based on an uncertain reading. 

In general terms the examples of other colonies of Corcyra 
and Corinth in the same area have made Anactorium's position 
in 433 clear. It had connections with both Corcyra and 
Corinth and these connections were politically important. As at 
Leucas, Epidamnus and perhaps Apollonia, Corinth took the 
opportunity to gain sole control of the place at the expense of 
the Corcyrean connection. However, the degree of control and 
the legal status of Anactorium are not revealed by the evidence 
so far discussed. One further passage which Kahrstedt used to 
show Corinth's relationship to her colonies, and which, it might 
be thought, could be used as an analogy for Anactorium's 
status, remains to be considered. 

When the Corcyreans suggested to the Corinthians that their 
dispute about Epidamnus should be decided by arbitration, 
their offer is expressed by Thucydides in these words (1.28.2): 
onorsQcov S'av dixaaOfj slvai tr\v aJtoiniav, rovtovt; xQarelv. 
Kahrstedt (358) used this passage to show that the Corinthian 
control over the colonies in question, indicated by other expres- 
sions, was the consequence of their status as colonies, for the 
right to xQareiv over Epidamnus belongs to those whose colony 
Epidamnus is adjudged to be. Since HQarsco is used of Athens' 
control over her allies, 1 it might also be urged that Corinth's 
control over colonies was like that of Athens over her empire. In 
which case the analogy of Athens' better known control could 
provide a basis for conjectures about the detailed position of the 
Corinthian colonies. 

Both these arguments depend on understanding TOVTOV$ 
KQareiv to mean 'they should possess (own, control, etc.) it'. 
Nearly all the English translators, whose rendering is close 
enough to show their opinion, do, it is true, take the phrase as 
meaning 'they should have it' (Loeb) or the like. 2 Gomme 
writes (1. 162 f) c "that side should possess it", Epidamnos, as 
though Epidamnos was not an independent state which might 

1 See e.g. Tod 72.6 and the inscriptions cited by Meiggs, CR Ixiii 1949, 

9f- 

2 e.g. Hobbes (corrected edition 1676), Grawley (London 1874), Loeb 
editor (1919). A recent Italian edition also translates in this sense, and 
follows the same line in the notes; see Thucydides I, ed. Maddalena 
(Florence 1951) 100, 16. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 135 

have some say in the matter itself. This shows that he felt some 
difficulty, but he does not suggest that there is any doubt about 
his translation. 

This is a formidable array of modern interpreters, but a com- 
parison with Thucydides' other uses of the word Kgarelv sug- 
gests that they are mistaken. It is a very common word in 
Thucydides, 1 of which the primary meaning is c to win' or 
c prevaiF. In this sense it is often used absolutely. It also fre- 
quently means c to possess'. In this sense it takes an object in the 
genitive case. When it is used in this latter significance the 
word in the genitive is never left to be understood unless in the 
passage under discussion. Betant himself, whose special study 
was Thucydides' language, included the passage among the 
examples of the first meaning: 'praevalere, superare, vincere 3 . If 
he is right, the passage must be literally translated 'that, of 
whomsoever the colony be adjudged, they should be the winners 
(i.e. of the dispute)'. It certainly seems better to translate thus 
rather than to render the sentence in a way which demands 
supplying an object, a usage unexampled elsewhere in Thucy- 
dides. 

If Betant's interpretation of the phrase is correct, xQar&lv has 
the same significance as vixfjv in the record of an arbitration by 
the Argives. 2 The judgment is expressed in these words: 
sdixaaaav (sc. ol 'Agysloi} VLK^V Kt,p,a>U\p~\vs\ which are to be 
translated 'the Argives adjudged that the Cimolians win (the 
dispute)'. No one suggests that they mean 'the Argives adjudged 
that the Cimolians conquer (the islands in dispute)'. If xgatelv 
is understood in the sense proposed, nothing can be deduced 
about the legal status of the colonies from the sentence under 
discussion, and it does not add to our knowledge of the exact 
position of Anactorium with regard to Corinth and Corcyra. 

The remainder of the evidence for the status of the Corinthian 
colonies in question comes from passages in ancient authors 
where the meaning of the words is hardly in doubt. The close 
connection with Corinth in war is well attested. Leucas and 
Ambracia were present, like the Corinthians, at Salamis, 3 and 
at Plataea there were contingents from Leucas, Anactorium and 
Potidaea, as also from Corinth. 4 Leucas and Ambracia played 

1 See Betant, Lexicon Thucydideum, s.v. 2 Tod 179.12-14. 

3 Hdt. VIII.45. * Hdt ix.28.3 ?5 . 



136 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

a very considerable role on Corinth's side in the war against 
Corcyra which preceded the Peloponnesian War, and in the 
latter too. 1 Further, when Potidaea was coerced by Athens in 
432, the Corinthians organized a force to go to the help of the 
colony, 2 and they regarded the attack on their colony as a 
reason for war. 3 

Kahrstedt noted (359) that we are not told of any formal 
alliance between Corinth and her colonies. While it is wrong to 
make too much of an argument from silence, it is true that the 
regular help in war given between Corinth and her colonies is 
not thought to need explanation by ancient writers. The only 
time that Thucydides accounts for the connection, he says that 
the forces from Leucas and Ambracia came xara TO ^vyy&vic, 
(11.58.3), and we need not doubt that this relationship was 
either the basis for a formal alliance or the reason why such an 
alliance was unnecessary. Kahrstedt's conclusion (ibid.) that 
the contingents of the allies could be mobilized by Corinth as if 
they were Corinthians is not, however, necessary, nor do 
Corinthian garrisons in the colonies 4 reflect anything more than 
the practical need to defend her allies in war. 

But if the mutual help in war does not necessarily show 
Corinth's control over colonies, clear evidence for such control 
is to be seen in the fact, reported by Thucydides (1.56.2), that 
Corinth sent magistrates (emdrjjuiovQ'yoi) each year to Potidaea. 
Pericles' demand that they should be dismissed makes im- 
probable Kahrstedt's view (364) that they were no more than a 
survival and had no power in practice. 5 If Pericles was afraid 
that they would exert influence on Potidaea to encourage her to 
revolt from Athens, their position can hardly have been purely 
formal. It must be confessed, however, that we have no evidence 
for their exact position and duties. 6 

1 The references in Thucydides for their activity are: (Ambracia) 
1.26.1; 111.114.4; IV.42.3; Vll.y.i; 58.3.; (Leucas) 1.26.1; 30.2; II.g.2; 
80.2; 81.3; 91.2; 111.7.4; 61.1; 81.1; 94; Vll.y.i; 58.3; VIZI. 106.2. 

2 Thuc. I.6o. 3 Thuc. 1.66; 67.1. 

4 See Thuc. 111.114.4; IV.42.3. 

5 Will follows Kahrstedt in this view; see La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 416; 
Korinthiaka 524 n. i. 

6 The idea that they were eponymous magistrates (as de Sanctis, Storia 
del Gred 11,264) is presumably based on Thucydides' information (ibid.) 
that they were sent Kara. STOQ tsxaarov, but there were plenty of annual 
magistrates who were not eponymous. It is possible that the name implies 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 137 

Two opinions are equally possible on the question why we 
hear of these officials in distant Potidaea and in no other 
Corinthian colony. 1 It may be sheer chance, 2 since if Corinth 
sent officials to Potidaea, she might be expected a fortiori to send 
them to the more closely connected colonies in the North West. 
On the other hand it may have been Potidaea's distance from 
Corinth which made it necessary to send officials to that colony 
alone. 3 But both opinions assume, no doubt rightly, that 
Corinthian control over the relevant colonies in the North West 
was at least as close as that attested by the sni,dr]^LovQyol at 
Potidaea. 

None of the evidence on the status of the colonies has been 
seen to support Kahrstedt's thesis that they were simply parts of 
the Corinthian state, but it has all tended to the conclusion that 
Corinth had a position of political supremacy with regard to her 
colonies. This is necessarily an undefined expression, as there is 
no evidence to allow a very precise description; however, the 
limits of this supremacy can be discovered by investigating 
whether the colonies had independence in foreign policy. 

Before the Peloponnesian War two colonies of Corinth, 
Molycrium and Potidaea, were joined to Athens. Potidaea was 
a regular tribute-paying ally, 4 and Molycrium was subject to 
Athens but did not pay tribute. 5 It is not certain how Moly- 
crium became subject to Athens, 6 but there is no need to doubt 
that Potidaea did so voluntarily and did not regard the alliance 
as incompatible with her position as a loyal colony of Corinth. 
The events of 433 and the following years show that her 

that they had powers of survey over the other magistrates (cf. Gomme, 
Commentary to 1.56.2), but the other uses of the word suggest that It was 
simply one among the many names of Greek magistrates; see Pomtow, 
Klio xviii 1923, 285 ff. However, these instances are much later in date, and 
so can hardly be considered illuminating parallels for the snLdr^iovQyoL at 
Potidaea. 

1 After the Battle of Olpae the Corinthians sent a garrison to Ambracia 
and Ssvoxhetdav . . . aq^ovra (Thuc. 111.114.4), but he is probably to be 
regarded as a special official sent because of the emergency at Ambracia 
after her terrible losses (see III. 1 13.6). 

2 As Kahrstedt 361. 

3 As Will, La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 416 n. 2; Korinthiaka 524 n. i. 

4 Thuc. 1.56.2. _ 5 Thuc. III.I02.2. 

6 It is suggested in RE, s.v. Molykreion 37, that Molycrium was taken by 
the Athenians when they captured Naupactus; Naupactus too paid no 
tribute. 



138 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

relations with Corinth were still very good. However, it could be 
argued that an alliance with Athens, when Athens and Corinth 
were at peace, does not necessarily prove that Potidaea could 
conduct her foreign policy independently of Corinth. It is also 
arguable that Potidaea's distance from Corinth would make 
any Corinthian aspiration to control her foreign policy im- 
practicable, 1 and so Potidaea is not a good analogy for the 
position of the North- Western colonies. 

It is therefore extremely fortunate that we have evidence 
about the foreign policy of Ambracia, one of the colonies most 
closely connected to Corinth, for the period of the Pelopon- 
nesian War. After great losses at Olpae and Idomene Ambracia 
concluded a peace treaty and alliance with the Acarnanians and 
Amphilochians, the terms of which are given by Thucydides as 
follows (111.114.3): 



&QT& /ArjTe ' ' A^nqaKiAraq jusrd ^AuaQvdvoyv aTQarevew em 
novvqaiovs ftrjTs ' 'AxaQvdvas jasrd y AjjinqaKioyrcov en 'Adrjvaiovg, 
poTjdetv de rfj dAltfAcoVj xal dnodovvcu * AfinQaxid^ra^ OTtoaa fj %w>Qia 
rj ofAiJQovs *A]u,(pd6%a)v s%ovai, %al euil ^AvawtoQiov IJUY] (iorjdeiv 
8v ' 



This treaty shows that Ambracia could negotiate for itself in a 
treaty which was more than a local affair. 3 It was also, both in 
general and particular, a treaty against Corinth's interests. 
Their great losses may no doubt have inclined Corinth to for- 
give the Ambraciots for giving up the struggle against Corinth's 
enemies; but in their weakness they even had to agree specific- 
ally not to help Anactorium, which duly fell to Athenian and 
Acarnanian attackers the following year. 4 The treaty must 
therefore be accepted as unequivocal evidence that even a 

1 As, for example, in the Persian wars; see Hdt. VIII. 126.2 f. 

2 'That neither shall the Ambraciots make war together with the Acar- 
nanians against the Peloponnesians, nor shall the Acarnanians make war 
together with the Ambraciots against the Athenians. But they shall help in 
defending each other's territory, and the Ambraciots shall give back such 
land or hostages of the Amphilochians as they possess, and they shall not 
help Anactorium, which is an enemy of the Acarnanians.' 

3 Kahrstedt (361 n. 3) tried to escape the necessary conclusions from this 
evidence by asserting that while the colonies could not conduct their own 
foreign policy, the parochial relations with the tribes of the interior were an 
exception. But the relations of Ambracia and her neighbours had become 
part of the Peloponnesian War. 

4 Thuc. IV.49. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 139 

colony so closely connected to Corinth as Ambracia could con- 
duct an independent foreign policy. 

It also, by itself, demolishes the two extravagant theories 
about these Corinthian colonies advanced by Kahrstedt and 
Hampl, If the colonies were simply extensions of the Corinthian 
state and their inhabitants Corinthian citizens, not only would 
it have been impossible for Ambracia to make a treaty against 
Corinth's interests, she could not have made a treaty at all. The 
treaty would have had to be made by Corinth. If, on the other 
hand, Ambracia was one of HampPs putative Toleis ohne 
Territorium', 1 a separate community on Corinthian territory, 
she could hardly have made a treaty which bound the Acar- 
nanians, Corinth's enemies, to support her if her (i.e. Corinth's) 
territory was attacked. Nor, if she had no territory, could she 
have agreed to give back territory taken from the Amphilo- 
chians. 

This lengthy discussion of Corinth's dependent colonies was 
partly necessary for the negative purpose of removing false 
doctrine. It is now time to assess the positive conclusions to 
which the evidence points. 

The general tendency of all the evidence discussed is towards 
the conclusion that Corinth not only maintained a very close 
relationship with these colonies, but that she had to some degree 
political supremacy over them. On the other hand, the evidence 
of some independence in foreign policy, if no other, 2 proves that 
the colonies had a separate existence from the mother city. In 
the fifth century, therefore, they should not be regarded as dif- 
ferent in kind from other Greek colonies. 

The necessity of making this point must not obscure the fact 
that in degree their relations with the metropolis were probably 
exceptionally close. All the evidence discussed suggests this; the 
Corinthians claimed it, 3 and incidental statements in Thucy- 
dides put it beyond doubt. For example, after the battle 
of Olpae the Peloponnesians were withdrawing according to 
their separate secret agreement with Demosthenes, which was 

1 See above p. 119. 

2 Other evidence for the independence of the colonies has been seen in 
the existence of their ethnics and in their separate contingents in war. But 
such evidence is not, by itself proof of political independence, as Kahrstedt's 
arguments (360)' showed. 

3 See the quotation at the beginning of the chapter. 



COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

designed to isolate the Ambraciots (III. 109.2). These observed 
the withdrawal and joined in, and the Acarnanians attacked 
under the impression that they were all escaping without an 
agreement. When they learnt that this was only true of the 
Ambraciots, they turned their attention entirely on them, but 
with some difficulty because jjv zroJUb) egig %al ayvoia elrs 
* AfjuiQCMubrrii; rig sanv ehsnsAonovvtfcriog^The Ambraciots were 
thus very hard to distinguish from the Peloponnesians; presum- 
ably they had kept their Corinthian characteristics unimpaired 
because of frequent intercourse with the mother city. 

The easy way in which Corinth moved settlers into these 
colonies, as at Anactorium 2 and, more notably, at Epidamnus, 
when she invited volunteers from Leucas and Ambracia to join 
her own, 3 may well suggest that the citizens of Corinth could 
take up citizenship in the colonies. 4 It was suggested in Chapter 
IV that this is the way to understand Corinth's behaviour re- 
garding Epidamnus, and such immigration would also explain 
why the soldiers of Ambracia were hard to distinguish from 
those of Peloponnesian cities. However, there is no more certain 
evidence on this point. 

The removal of over-formal legal concepts about the colonies' 
position allows proper emphasis to be given to the close per- 
sonal contacts which probably made legal arrangements super- 
fluous. When Potidaea was threatened by Athens, and Aristeus 
was sent from Corinth with a force of Corinthian volunteers and 
mercenaries from the other Peloponnesians, the volunteers went 
with him largely because he was popular, and Thucydides 
(I.Go.a) adds, presumably to explain the choice of Aristeus as 
leader, Jjv ya@ roig noTsidedtau; ai&i nors smtrid&ioQ^ If the rela- 
tions between Corinth and these colonies were largely a matter 
of personal connections rather than legal arrangements, it is not 
surprising that the Corinthian complaints against Corcyra's be- 

1 'There was much dispute and ignorance as to whether a man was an 
Ambraciot or a Peloponnesian.' 

2 Thuc. 1.55.1. 3 Thuc. 1.26.1. 

4 Though Gschnitzer would argue, following Hampl, that it shows that 
Corinth disposed of the colonies 5 land; see Abhdngige Orte im griech. Altertum, 

I 33- 

5 'For he had always been very friendly to the people of Potidaea. 9 As 
Gomme notes. Commentary ad. loc., the explanation can hardly refer to the 
immediately preceding remark about the reason why the volunteers joined 
the expedition. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 14! 

haviour as a colony 1 are not of legal nature. She wanted the 
colonists to accord her general hegemony and to fulfil their 
religious obligations. 

If the colonies were not tied to Corinth by a strict legal 
arrangement, it is probably wrong to imagine that they were all 
in exactly the same position regarding Corinth, This would 
explain the differences that can be observed in the way Thucy- 
dides describes them. The descriptions mentioned above 2 re- 
ferred only to Anactorium, Sollium and Chalcis. To these he 
applied the phrase KoqivQicDV nofav, etc. On the other hand, 
Leucas is called t^v Kogivdicov arcoixiav (1,30.2), one of his nor- 
mal ways of describing a colony, as are Ambracia (11.80.3), 
Apollonia (1.26.2) and Potidaea (1.56.2), The status of Sollium 
and Chalcis is unknown, 3 but Anactorium was in Corinthian 
hands by capture at the time to which Thucydides is referring. 
Perhaps the special control implied by his words is not univer- 
sally applicable to all these colonies. Nevertheless a general 
similarity between them may be accepted on the evidence of 
their foundation, 4 coins and relations with Corinth in war. 

The evidence for the position of these colonies which has been 
discussed is not earlier than the fifth century. It has been seen 
that the colonies were founded in such a way that they were 
dependent on Corinth, and the fifth-century evidence at least 
makes clear that this dependent position was not solely a conse- 
quence of the tyrants' ambitions for their family. However, it is 
not so certain that the position revealed in the fifth century 
should be assumed to have existed since the foundation of the 
colonies. It has been seen that Corinth was trying to assert her 
control over some mixed colonies at Corcyra's expense in the 
fifth century, so that it might be argued that this was part of a 
general Corinthian attempt to gain a stronger hold over her 
colonies. 5 But this could be true, without necessarily implying 
that relations had lapsed between the fall of the tyrants and the 



1 Thuc. 1.25.3 f ; 3 8 - 2 See PP- 

3 See above p. 119. 4 See Chapter III. 

5 Will ignores the evidence when he says (Korinthiaka 525) that there is no 
indication that Corinth had been trying to establish an arche in the North 
West. His further argument that, if she had established an arche in this way, 
the colonies would have joined Athens against Corinth in the Pelopon- 
nesian War is clearly quite untenable. But his conclusion that the colonies 
were closely dependent from the beginning is quite probable. 



142 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

fifth century. It is much more likely that close relations had 
persisted and provided the basis for a Corinthian attempt to 
make her position even more dominant. Potidaea, which lies 
outside Corinth's geographical sphere, seems to be a decisive 
example. There could be no question of Corinth's enforcing a 
stronger hold on Potidaea in the fifth century, yet their relations 
were very close, and Potidaea accepted Corinthian officials, up 
to the Peloponnesian War. 

So it may be accepted that in a general sense the position of 
the colonies in the fifth century is a guide to their status since 
their foundation. For instance, it would be surprising if the 
colonies had been legally parts of the Corinthian state at their 
foundation but had ceased to be so by the fifth century. The 
subsequent relationship agrees too well with the deductions 
from the way in which the colonies were founded for it to be 
regarded as unconnected with the aims of the founders. 

There have been many attempts to conjecture precisely what 
these aims were. The view most commonly advanced is that the 
colonies were settled in order to secure Corinth's control of the 
route to the silver mines of Illyria. 1 This may be true, and 
would certainly explain why Corinth would want to keep up 
close relations with the colonies, but it is a conjecture only, so 
that it is not necessary for the present purpose to discuss the 
possibility in detail. 2 Here it is sufficient to state that there is 
good evidence to show that both at their foundation and in sub- 
sequent times the colonies were sufficiently closely connected to 
Corinth to be regarded as a means of extending Corinth's power 
abroad. It is therefore legitimate, so long as the phrase is not 
understood to imply special legal forms, to speak of a Corin- 
thian colonial empire. 

Corinth's relations with Syracuse and Corcyra 

If a special legal status is assumed for the colonies of the 
tyrants, it is necessary to set the two pre-tyrant foundations en- 
tirely apart from them. So Kahrstedt (364 ff) naturally excluded 
Syracuse and Corcyra from a Corinthian colonial empire in 

1 Will (Korinthiaka 536 ff) follows Beaumont (JHS Ivi 1936, 181 ff) in 
accepting that these mines were the source of Corinth's silver. J. M. F. May 
is more cautious; see The Coinage of Damastion pp. viiif, 2 f. 

2 On the basis of this assumption Will makes interesting suggestions about 
political reasons for the sites of the colonies; see Korinthiaka 529 f, 532 f. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 143 

which the colonies were part of the Corinthian state, and Will 
states 1 that it was a rhetorical device for the Corinthians to 
compare Corcyra to the other colonies, 2 since their juridical 
position was different. But as the juridical position postulated by 
Kahrstedt and accepted by Will is to be rejected, the colonies of 
the tyrants need not be considered to have been formally in a 
different legal position from Corcyra and Syracuse, and 
Corinth's relations with these two colonies should be studied for 
the sake of comparison, as well as for their intrinsic interest. 

We have already seen that Corinth's commercial connections 
with Corcyra and Syracuse and her influence on them aestheti- 
cally show e a constant interchange of men and ideas'. 3 Such 
relations between individual citizens of colonies and mother 
city provide the basis for their relations as states. In inter- 
national relations Corinth seems to have regularly supported 
Syracuse, and on the first occasion recorded Corcyra was also 
concerned. 

Herodotus relates (11.154.3) that when Syracuse had been 
defeated by Hippocrates of Gela in 492, the Corinthians and 
Corcyreans intervened on Syracuse's behalf and settled the 
dispute on the terms that Camarina should be ceded to Gela. 
Possibly owing to the associations of the word used by Herodo- 
tus for the establishment of peace, xaTaMdgavrei;, this event has 
been thought to be an example of arbitration. 4 But it should be 
regarded, as Tod saw, 5 rather as an instance of mediation, for 
Hippocrates held the whiphand and had no need to seek arbi- 
tration. Corinth and Corcyra came to Syracuse's assistance in 
her emergency, and Hippocrates accepted the proffered settle- 
ment rather than oppose so formidable a combination. 

It has been suggested that the Corinthian and Corcyrean 
intervention was caused by a desire to protect their commercial 
interests. But such an explanation demands the assumption, 

1 La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 417 f; Korinthiaka 525. 

2 Thuc. 1.38. 8 Dunbabin 284; cf. above p. 13. 

4 Macan, for instance, although he notes that it may not be a true 
example of arbitration, suggested that the notorious enmity between 
Corinth and Corcyra would have ensured a fair judgment; see Herodotus 
VII, VIII, IX with Introduction etc., 214 n. i. This is not convincing; one 
chooses disinterested parties for an arbitration, not two possibly interested, 
but hostile, parties. 

5 Greek International Arbitration, 65; he is followed by Dunbabin (401). 

6 By Dunbabin (284). 



144 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

which there is no reason to make, that Hippocrates would have 
interfered with Syracusan trade. Furthermore, if interests were 
at stake, it would be surprising to find Corinth and Corcyra 
acting together. They were quarrelling over Leucas at about 
this time, 1 and an explanation which implies long-term co- 
incidence of Corinthian and Corcyrean interests conflicts with 
Herodotus' statement (111.49.1) that they were virtually con- 
tinually at enmity with each other. This statement may be 
exaggerated, but Herodotus is hardly likely to have been 
seriously mistaken about the fifth century. While Corinth and 
Corcyra probably would not agree about interests, they were 
both tied by relationship to Syracuse, and this may be regarded 
as the reason why they both wished to protect Syracuse against 
Hippocrates. 

The Corinthian help for Syracuse against Athens in the 
Peloponnesian War might be regarded as inspired as much by 
hostility to Athens as good relations with her colony, but it is 
notable that the Syracusan ambassadors sent to ask for help go 
first to Corinth, and then, with Corinthian support, to Sparta. 2 

The next occasion on which Corinthian support of Syracuse 
is recorded is the expedition of Timoleon. In 344** the aristo- 
crats 4 in Syracuse appealed to Corinth for help against their 
tyrant. The Corinthians voted to give assistance and Timoleon 
was chosen to lead the expedition. 5 His force consisted of seven 
Corinthian ships, two Corcyrean and one from Leucas. 6 After 
the overwhelming success of his mission, Timoleon also arranged 
for the reorganization and resettlement of Syracuse. He sent to 
Corinth asking for settlers, 7 and Plutarch relates (Tim. 
XXXVIII. 4) that the Syracusans decreed that in any future 
war against a foreign enemy they would employ a Corinthian 
general. 

As Plutarch tells the story, Corinth's position as a benevolent 

1 See above pp. 129 f. 

2 Thuc. VI.88 7-10. Note the phrase dgwvvreg ayiai Kara TO 



. 

3 See Plut. Timoleon II. i; Diod. XVI.Ss-i. For the date see Westlake, AJP 
Ixx 1949, 73. In this paper Westlake shows (65-75) that the expedition went 
against the tyrants in Sicily, not against the Carthaginians, as Plutarch 
states. 

4 See Westlake 74 and n. 28. 5 Plut. 77m. III.i; Diod. loc. cit. 
6 Plut. Tim. VIII.4. 

^ Plut. Tim. XXIII. i. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 145 

mother city is strongly emphasized. 1 He remarks approvingly 
(XXXII. i f) that Corinth did not make use of the opportunity 
for aggrandizement when asked to send in new settlers, and if 
his picture could be accepted as accurate Corinth would be seen 
as a supreme but helpful mother city. However, careful study of 
Plutarch's account by Westlake has shown that it and its 
sources make certain misrepresentations. 2 Among these must be 
set Plutarch's description of the attitude of Corinth. For Corinth 
showed in fact little interest in the expedition, and it is rather 
Timoleon's loyalty and propaganda that is reflected in the 
tendency of our sources to give the credit for the enterprise to 
the Corinthians. 3 

It is also true that the Syracusan decision to use a Corinthian 
general in future foreign wars may be rather an expression of 
gratitude, or possible safeguard against the danger of domestic 
tyrants, 4 than a recognition of any Corinthian right. On the 
other hand, this decision, the request for help in the first place, 
and the acceptance of new settlers from Corinth, are all finally 
based on the relationship of Syracuse and Corinth as colony and 
mother city. And the words of the dedication on Timoleon's 
victory monument at Corinth 5 show that this relationship was 
consciously in the minds of the participants in the events. The 
inscription is only partly preserved, but the allies named are, 
except the Sikeliots, Corinth and her colonies, and Corinth is 
called the founder (xriarfJQa). 

It may be that the Spartan help given to Taras in 346 should 
be regarded as similar to Corinth's support of Syracuse. 
Diodorus (XVI.62.4 f) says explicitly that the appeal for help 
and its success were both due to Taras' position as a colony of 

!E.g. II.i;III.i. 

2 The paper cited above showed one of Plutarch's misrepresentations. In 
CQ^xxxii 1938, 65-74, Westlake showed that Plutarch's sources were two: 
Timaeus' history and a biography mainly interested in ethos. He therefore 
concludes that the main political events may be accepted as true, but the 
motives given by Plutarch must be treated more warily. 

3 See Westlake, Camb. Hist. Jour, vii 1942, 75 f. Wentker, Sizilien und 
Athen, (Heidelberg 1956), 1 1-14, takes Plutarch's account at its face value, 
and overemphasizes the effect of presumed family connections between the 
aristocracy of Corinth and Syracuse. Since both cities had been through 
many vicissitudes, and about 400 years had passed since the colony was 
founded, the effect of such family connections should not be exaggerated. 

4 The latter possibility was suggested to me by Sir Frank Adcock. 

5 See J. H. Kent, Hesperia xxi 1952, 9 ff; for the text, 13. 



146 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Sparta, but since Strabo (VI. 280) equates the appeal with 
others to peoples unrelated to Taras, it is legitimate to ask 
whether the special motives given by Diodorus are not simply 
his own ideas. The rather mediocre support of Sparta's cause by 
Taras in the Peloponnesian War 1 does not imply specially close 
relations between the two cities. 

Many of the aspects of Corinth's relations with Corcyra have 
already been touched on incidentally, but it is worth assembling 
all the material together, because Corcyra is the best docu- 
mented example of a colony which was often hostile to its 
metropolis. We have seen that Herodotus (111.49.1) could state 
that Corinth and Corcyra had been hostile to each other since 
the foundation of the colony, and the first that we hear of their 
relations is that they fought a sea-battle in c. 664, the first Greek 
naval battle known to Thucydides (1.13.4). Thucydides him- 
self gives no information about the causes or circumstances of 
the battle. 2 This has not deterred modern writers from assuming 
that it was a Corcyrean attempt to become independent of 
Corinth. 3 Such an assumption presupposes that Corcyra was 
established as a dependent colony of Corinth, though there is 
no evidence for such a conclusion. 4 In fact various slight indica- 
tions suggest that the idea of a war of independence is out of 
place. 

It is in the first place very unlikely that Corinth would have 
allowed a subject colony to build a navy capable of challenging 
her own, and if Herodotus' words are strictly accurate and 
Corcyra was refractory from the beginning, it is even more im- 
probable. This argument is strengthened by the rarity of war- 
ships for naval battles in those days. 5 Secondly, the reception of 

1 It is true that Taras refused to allow the Athenian fleet even to anchor 
and take water (Thuc. VI.44.2), and gave Gylippus a friendly reception 
(VT.I04.2), but these are passive acts, and the Tarentine ships mentioned in 
the Peloponnesian fleet sent to Euboea in 411 (VIII. 9 1.2) are hardly 
significant. By that time Athens' weakness and the common Dorian stock 
would be sufficient reason for a modicum of support from Taras. Thus 
Thucydides does not differentiate Taras' support from that of other states 
which were unrelated to Sparta. 

2 The y&Q of the succeeding sentence refers not to the sea-battle but to the 
implication in the previous two sentences that Corinth was the first Greek 
state to develop a navy. 

3 E.g. Dunbabin 56; Wade-Gery, CAH 111.550. 

4 See below pp. 218 iff. 

6 Cf. Ure, The Origin of Tyranny, 32 1 f. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 147 

the Bacchiad exiles 1 at Corcyra not many years after the battle 
suggests that it had not been accompanied by the bitterness 
engendered by wars of independence, for these same men had 
been the rulers of Corinth at the time of the battle. Although 
these arguments are inevitably uncertain, when combined with 
the improbability that Corcyra was a dependent settlement at 
the beginning, they have a certain weight. If the cause of the 
dispute was not a Corcyrean attempt to win independence, it 
may be that Corinth's and Corcyra's interests were already 
clashing in North- West Greece, as they did in later times. 

We have seen that the behaviour of Corcyra at the foundation 
of Epidamnus suggests that she was then on good terms with 
Corinth but independent of her. 2 There followed the period of 
definite Corinthian rule under Periander, when Corcyra's 
status was comparable to that of the colonies founded by the 
tyrants. 3 At this time Corcyreans may have joined various 
Corinthian colonies in the neighbouring region. 4 

It is clear from the next evidence for their political relations, 
which relates to the fifth century, that Corcyra had thrown off 
Corinthian control well before that time. The quarrel over 
Leucas 5 shows that she was then the fully independent state 
that we know better in the second half of the fifth century. 
Differences with Corinth over three colonies, Leucas, Anac- 
torium and Epidamnus, are attested; it has been seen that there 
may have been a similar dispute over Apollonia. The details of 
their relations concerning three of these colonies are not known; 
but because of Thucydides 3 narrative the affair of Epidamnus is 
especially informative. 6 

The rebuff which Corcyra gave to the democrats of Epidam- 
nus was countered by their appeal to Corinth. The way 
Corinth seized the opportunity may be seen as characteristic of 
her behaviour in the area under discussion; partly because of 
her bad relations with Corcyra, she vigorously accepted the task 
of protecting Epidamnus, and sent troops and further settlers to 
the city. Corcyra's protests and threats were ignored, and war 
followed. The defeat at Leucimme, and Corcyra's consequent 
success in imposing her will on Epidamnus and attacking 

1 See Chapter VI. 2 See Chapter III. 

3 See Chapter III. 4 See above pp. 129 ff. 

5 See above pp. 129 f. 6 1.24-55. 



148 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Corinthian allies, only stimulated Corinth to greater efforts, but 
when she had almost succeeded in defeating Corcyra at Sybota 
the Athenian ships saved the day for their new ally. As some 
consolation the Corinthians took Anactorium on the way home. 

Such a serious and lasting quarrel between Corinth and her 
colony might be expected to show a fundamental division. It is 
therefore surprising that the Corinthians hoped to influence 
their Corcyrean prisoners by good treatment so as to win the 
island over to friendly relations. 1 In 427 these hopes were tem- 
porarily fulfilled when the resulting pro-Peloponnesian party 
actually induced the state to decree that Corcyra should be- 
come friendly with the Peloponnesians as she had been in the 
past. 2 This shows that neither side regarded their hostile rela- 
tions as inevitable and permanent, and, in fact, good relations 
at various times are attested. In addition to the period of 
Cypselus, they may be seen in Corcyra's contribution to Timo- 
leon's expedition. Herodotus could not know the latter, but 
even so his words should not be accepted quite literally, for 
Corinth and Corcyra were not unceasing enemies from the 
time of the colony's foundation. 

A comparison of Syracuse and Corcyra with the colonies of 
the tyrants reveals the following differences. Syracuse and 
Corcyra were probably not founded as dependent settlements; 
their coinage is quite distinct from Corinth's; and there is no 
evidence for Corinth's political supremacy over them except in 
the reign of Periander, when Corcyra was under his control. At 
this time Corcyra was in the same position as the colonies of the 
tyrants, which may show that the essential difference between 
these colonies and the pre-tyrant foundations was one of size 
and power. The colonies of the tyrants were never comparable 
with Corinth in these respects; both Syracuse and Corcyra 
were. 3 As a result political dependence was practically out of 
the question, and when their interests clashed a real quarrel 
could result, as on several occasions between Corinth and 
Corcyra. The difference is not less important for being one of 
practice rather than theory: Syracuse and Corcyra were ob- 
viously not part of Corinth's colonial empire. But if all the 



1 Thuc. 1.55.1. 2 T k UC4 111.70.1 f. 

3 Cf. Corinth's resentment at Corcyra's wealth and strength; see Thuc. 
1.25.4. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 149 

colonies of Corinth were in principle similar, we can under- 
stand the character of the complaints against Corcyra, in 
which she is unfavourably compared with the other colonies. 1 

Corcyra and her colonies 

Corcyra's relations to her colonies seem to offer a close 
parallel to the relationship between Corinth and her colonial 
empire. As has been seen 2 Corcyra was the metropolis of 
Epidamnus, though Corinthian settlers were among the 
colonists, 3 and participated in the colonies of Leucas, Anac- 
torium and Apollonia. Her relations with Leucas and Anac- 
torium can only be conjectured from the information discussed 
above that she had kept up relations with her colonists and it 
was of interest to her that they should not fall completely under 
Corinthian influence. 

The coinage of Apollonia has been mentioned in an earlier 
part of this chapter, where it was seen to imply that Apollonia's 
connection with Corcyra was similar to that of Ambracia or 
Leucas with Corinth. The same inference may be made about 
Epidamnus' relations with Corcyra, for the first coins of 
Epidamnus bear exactly the same relationship to the coins of 
Corcyra as the first coins of Apollonia. The only difference is 
that they are not so rare as those of Apollonia, which may be 
explained by the possibility suggested above, that Corinthian 
influence in Apollonia caused the first issue of coins to cease 
soon after it began. But as inferences about political status 
drawn from coins must always be uncertain, it is fortunate 
that Corcyra's relations with one of these colonies, Epidamnus, 
are more clearly illuminated by Thucydides' narrative. 

Epidamnus 3 relations with the mother city are revealed par- 
ticularly in the appeal to Corcyra and in Corcyra's reaction 
when the colony handed itself over to Corinth. The ruling 
democratic party appealed to Corcyra, as the mother city 
(cog jurjTQonolw ovaav, 1.24.6), to save them from destruction by 
effecting a reconciliation between them and the exiled oli- 
garchs and by bringing to an end the war with the surrounding 
native population. This may be seen as an example of the kind 
of intervention expected by a colony from its mother city. 
Corcyra's rejection of the appeal is to be explained by reference 

1 Thuc, ibid, and 1.38. 2 In Chapter III. 3 Thuc. 1.24.2. 



150 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

to the passage 1.26.3, which describes how the oligarchic exiles 
from Epidamnus came to Corcyra, pointed to the tombs of their 
ancestors, appealed to the claims of kinship, and persuaded the 
Gorcyreans to reinstate them. Presumably Corcyrean sym- 
pathies were with the oligarchs from the beginning. 

The appeal of the oligarchs is a vivid illustration of the way in 
which kinship provided the fundamental basis for the relations 
between colony and mother city. It is probably right to see in 
the oligarchs of Epidamnus the descendants of the first settlers 
from Corcyra, 1 who had become the aristocracy of the colony 
and provided a close link with the mother city. But it should be 
noted that Corcyra was not so concerned with the affairs of 
Epidamnus that she felt the need to intervene to prevent the 
exile of the party she favoured. 2 She was prepared to let 
Epidamnus work out its own salvation, and to allow the oli- 
garchs to fend for themselves, until the intervention of Corinth 
stimulated vigorous action, including a demand for their re- 
instatement. 

Corcyra's reaction to Corinth's intervention is partly to be 
understood, as has been seen, by reference to the other colonies 
of the area in which Corinth had attempted to make her in- 
fluence supreme. But it also shows that Corcyra considered that 
Epidamnus could be lost and won; to some degree, therefore, 
they regarded the city as under their control. The Corcyreans 
also felt that their title to Epidamnus would win the day, for 
they were willing to submit the dispute to arbitration; though 
this may show confidence in Spartan support 3 as well as a just 
cause, for both the arbitrators suggested, Delphi and cities of the 
Peloponnese, might be expected to follow Sparta's lead. 

The way in which Epidamnus handed itself over to Corinth 
may also be seen as an illustration of the relations of colonies to 
mother cities, at least in this area. The question to Delphi, el 
naQadoisv KoQivQioig rrjv n6hv &q o&oorafe 4 (1.25.1), Delphi's 
reply, na^adovvai xal tfyeftovag Tioisiodafi (ibid.), and Corinth's 



1 As Wentker, Si&liert und Athen, 1 1 f, though his reconstruction of the 
political developments in Epidamnus is more hypothetical than his language 
suggests. 

2 1 owe this observation to the late Professor Gomme. 

3 See Thuc. I.28.I. 

4 { If they should hand over the city to the Corinthians as founders.' 

5 'Hand the city over and make them your leaders.* 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 15! 

subsequent actions to protect and reinforce the colony all show 
that real political supremacy was accorded the mother city. It 
is not unreasonable to add Corinth's claim that she founded the 
colonies snl ra> riys^ovsQ rs slvai K<U ra elxora Oav/td&adcu 1 
(1.38.2)3 and conclude that the position of the mother city here 
implied was hegemonial. 2 

To use such a word does not imply agreement with Wentker's 
theory that this hegemonial position was based on a connection 
of service between the nobility of the colony and that of the 
metropolis, by which the nobility of the colony became the 
'Gefolgschaft' of the 'Adelsfamilien' in the mother city. 3 On the 
basis of this conception he assumes that Corinth's action in 
sending further settlers to the colony was intended to provide an 
aristocracy in the colony bound to Corinth in such a relation- 
ship. This somewhat far-fetched idea is made untenable by the 
fact that Epidamnus was under a democratic regime. 

If Epidamnus provides a typical example of Corcyra's rela- 
tions to her colonies, it may be said that Corcyra kept up a close 
connection with her colonies and that she regarded her in- 
fluence over them as a matter of importance and justified by her 
position as mother city. On the other hand they were certainly 
not parts of the Corcyrean state, and their internal affairs at 
least were their own concern. Such relations justify the con- 
clusion that the exact similarity in their coinage between two of 
Corcyra's colonies and some of Corinth's reflects a similarity of 
status. Corinth's relations with her dependent colonies were not 
unique. 

The evidence about Corinth's relations with her colonies, and 
especially with those founded by the tyrants in the North-West, 
has shown that they were founded with imperial intentions and 
remained in close connection with Corinth and under her 
domination. Corcyra's colonies seem to have had a very closely 
similar status but these were in the same area and also closely 

1 'In order to be leaders and receive reasonable respect.' 

2 As H. Schaefer, Staatsform und Politik, 225 f, who very justly compares 
Epidamnus 5 action with that of Plataea in seeking the protection of Athens. 
The words that Herodotus uses (VI. 108.2-4) are very similar to those of 
Thucydides, and it is clear that Plataea delivered herself into Athens' power 
in return for Athenian protection. 

3 Sizilien undAthen 13 f. 



152 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

connected racially to Corinth. It is, therefore, more important 
to see if Corinth's relations with her colonies are markedly 
different from the relations of other Greek colonies and mother 
cities. 

It has been seen that Athens founded colonies to further her 
imperial aims, 1 but these were rather later than those of 
Corinth, and their relations to Athens are still to be discussed. 
However, in Chapter V several examples were noted of colonies 
in a definitely subordinate position regarding their mother city, 
such as those of Thasos, Sybaris and Syracuse. It was seen that 
when the distance between the colony and metropolis was 
small the colony tended to come under the mother city's close 
control, so that in some cases its independent existence is in 
doubt. The Corinthian dependent colonies were definitely 
separate communities, but they too were so closely connected 
with Corinth as to count in a general way as her possessions. 

Except for Chalcis and Molycrium the colonies are not par- 
ticularly close to Corinth geographically, but the same factor, 
ease of communication, may have made their position similar 
to that of colonies founded at a much smaller distance from 
their mother cities. The character of Corinth's colonization is 
to be understood in the light of Thucydides' information 
(1.13.2, 5) that Corinth was very early a considerable naval 
power. From the beginning frequent intercourse was possible 
with her colonies, and this would allow her to control them. 
This is the practical difference between Corinth and many other 
mother cities to which we should attribute any special character 
in her colonization, not the legal or formal differences postu- 
lated by some scholars, which have been seen to be unsupported 
by evidence. 

It has been seen that the colonists were not citizens of Corinth, 
and there is no explicit evidence for mutual citizenship, as there 
is in the case of Miletus. However, Corinth could send settlers to 
her colonies, so that freedom of movement between colony and 
metropolis also existed within this group. 

The position of Corinth's colonies seems to have lain some- 
where between autonomy and absorption in the state of 
Corinth. Such a status is difficult to define, and the quarrel be- 
tween Corinth and Corcyra partly sprang from this indefinite- 

1 See Chapter III. 



CORINTH AND THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 153 

ness. Corinth not only felt that she had political rights over 
Epidamnus because it was, they claimed., their colony just as 
much as Corcyra's, but she also hated Gorcyra because Cor- 
cyrean independence and strength seemed an insult. These 
ideas, which Thucydides records, are particularly valuable, not 
only in themselves, but also because they can be tested against 
evidence for the practical position of the colonies. Just as the 
position was in practice neither freedom nor complete subjec- 
tion so Corcyra could argue that colonies were sent out not to be 
the slaves, but to be the equals of those who stayed behind, 1 
while Corinth maintained that she established colonies not to be 
insulted by them, but to be their leaders and receive reasonable 
respect (1.38.2). 

Such generalizations go to the heart of the problem of a 
Greek colony's political position regarding its mother city. But 
the very fact that both Corinth and Corcyra discuss the rela- 
tionship in such general terms suggests that political relations 
between Corinth and her colonies were not a matter of precise 
arrangement. On the other hand, religious relations evidently 
were. The only detailed complaints against Corcyra as an un- 
dutiful colony specify her failure to fulfil certain religious 
obligations to Corinth (1,254). But these obligations should be 
discussed in the light of the general religious relationship be- 
tween Greek colonies and their mother cities, which forms part 
of the subject of the next chapter. 

1 ov . . em ra> dovkoi dAAd snl rep tipoloi rotg farnoinivoK; &lvai] 1.34.1* 



CHAPTER VIII 

ARGOS, CNOSSUS, TYLISSUS, 
AND RELIGIOUS RELATIONS 



IN THE early years of this century were found at Argos two 
large fragments of an inscription 1 dated by its script to 
c. 450, which concerned Argos and the two Cretan cities, 
Cnossus and Tylissus. At about the same time there came to 
light at Tylissus one large fragment and a few small ones of an 
inscription of similar import and date. 2 Although it was recog- 
nized that the documents found at Argos and Tylissus dealt 
with the same or similar matters, 3 they were regarded as sepa- 
rate until Vollgraff suggested, in the last full-scale treatment, 4 
that they represented different parts of a single decree. Since 
the contents of the fragments found at Argos and Tylissus do 
not overlap, 5 it cannot be proved that they belong to a single 
document, but the subject-matter and treatment are so similar 6 
that VollgrafFs view is highly probable, and even if he is wrong 
they cannot be separated in their historical significance. We 
shall therefore treat them as parts of a single decree. 7 

1 Tod 33; 1C I.viii.4. 

2 1C I.xxx.i. The two inscriptions are Argos 39 a and 39 b in JefFery, Local 
Scripts of Archaic Greece (p. 165). 

3 Cf. Kirsten, RE s.v. Tylissos 1723 ff: 1C I pp. 58, 308. 

4 W. VollgrafF, 'Le decret d' Argos relatif a un pacte entre Knossos et 
Tylissos', Verhand. d. K. NederL Akad. van Wetenschappen (Letterkunde) , 
Nieuwe Reeks li 1948, no. 2. This book-length study supersedes all previous 
work, the references to which are given by VollgrafF in the notes to p. i . 
I shall refer to the document in Vollgraff's notation, that is Roman numerals 
for the fragment, and Arabic for the line. It should be remarked that the 
inscription from Argos (Tod 33; 1C I.viii.4) * s VollgrafFs fragment VI, the 
large fragment from Tylissus (1C I.xxx.i) his fragment V. For his view that 
all the fragments from Argos and Tylissus contain parts of a single decree, 
see pp. 3, 17. 

5 Although VollgrafF (6) considers that fragment III (from Tylissus) con- 
tains parts of lines 33 f. of fragment VI (from Argos), this seems to be 
mistaken; see JefFery loc. cit. (n. 2). 

6 Especially the mingling of political and military affairs with arrange- 
ments about cults; see VollgrafF, 17, who rightly says that this is the 
strongest argument in favour of his thesis. 

7 I print the text of the decree with a translation of the two main parts, 
V and VI, below in Appendix V. 



ARGOS, CNOSSUS, TYLISSUS 155 

The unusual character of the inscriptions found at Argos was 
immediately recognized. 1 Provenance, dialect, script and the 
dating by Argive officials (VI.43 f) a ^ show that they record 
an Argive decree, yet the decree mostly concerns relations 
between two Cretan cities, is in many ways similar to Cretan 
treaties, 2 and even has occasional instances of Cretan dialect. 3 
The inscription found at Tylissus was also recognized to be an 
Argive decree in spite of its provenance. Script, dialect and the 
similarity to the document found at Argos made this certain, 
not to mention the implications of the appearance of Argives 
in the text, and the probable conclusion from the small frag- 
ment I; 4 for this is recognizably the beginning 5 and contains the 
name Argive. The chief task in interpreting the documents has 
always been to explain why Argos should pass a decree of 
Cretan character about Cretan arrangements. 

The most obvious explanation is that it is an example of 
arbitration. In his comparison with other Cretan treaties Voll- 
graff noted 6 that arbitration was quite common among them. 
But this cannot be an arbitration, to mention only one, quite 
incontestable, reason, because Argos is involved in the arrange- 
ments herself; 7 an arbitrator is not an interested party. 8 

Among the striking features of the document is the impor- 
tant religious element. For although the main subject of the 
decree is a peace treaty between Cnossus and Tylissus, there are 

1 The stones at Argos were discovered by VollgrafF, and published by him 
in BCH xxxiv 1910, 331 fF; xxxvii 1913, 279 ff. To distinguish Vollgraff's 
work I shall use the following abbreviations in this chapter: VollgrafF 
Verhand. for the work described above p. 154 n. 4; VollgrafF BCH 1910 and 
VollgrafF C# 1913. 

2 As VollgrafF noted with examples, BCH 1913, 282 fF. 

3 See VollgrafF, BCH 1910, 353; 1913, 307; Verhand. 73. In the last place 
VollgrafF goes back on his earlier views, and says that the ol of ol Kvoaiot, 
(VI. 33) is the sole e creticisme' of the treaty. But his reasons for the exclusion 
of the other instances that he had collected earlier are rather weak. 



y AQ[y]ei[o. The restorations of these opening lines by VollgrafF (see 
Verhanct.6, 15 f) are inevitably uncertain. 

5 See VollgrafF, Verhand. 4. 

6 BCH 1913, 302 f. 

7 See, for the certain instances, V.8 fF, VI. 37 f. 

8 Scholars have generally recognized that the document is not an example 
of ordinary arbitration; cf. VollgrafF, BCH 1910, 334 f, Kirsten, Die Insel 
Kreta> 1 6 f, RE s.v. Tylissos 1 725. Tod cautiously says (I, pp. 62 f ) 'mediation, 
or possibly arbitration, of Axgos'. 



156 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

several arrangements for sacrifices not only to Cretan, but also 
to Argive deities, and the decree was passed by the assembly 
for sacred matters. 1 Thus not only does Argos decree the de- 
tailed arrangements of a treaty of peace and alliance between 
Cnossus and Tylissus, but her decree is a religious matter. 

In seeking an explanation for a connection between Argos 
and the Cretan cities which was bound up with religion, Voll- 
graff turned to the evidence that Argos was regarded as the 
metropolis of Crete. Whatever the true facts about the origin 
of the Dorian settlers of Crete in the period of the migrations., 
both literary and numismatic evidence show that in the classical 
period Argos was regarded as at least one of the centres from 
which they came. 2 VollgrafF suggested that this belief was the 
reason for the decree. 3 The two Cretan cities wanted to establish 
peaceful relations, and turned to Argos as their mother city, 
in order to have a higher, external guarantor of their arrange- 
ments. 

According to this explanation Argos is in the background 
and the basis for the document is an agreement between 
Cnossus and Tylissus. The provisions which refer to two parti- 
cipants without naming them are taken to imply an earlier text 
drawn up between Cnossus and Tylissus, 4 and the Cretan 
character and dialect forms are similarly explained. The great 
advantage of such an explanation is that it seems to cover all 
the facts, and accounts for Argos 5 role and the religious charac- 
ter of the agreement. It is not surprising, therefore, that Voll- 
grafPs thesis has been accepted by other students of Greek 
inscriptions 5 and Cretan affairs. 6 It is not, however, capable 
of final proof, which could only be provided by an explicit 

1 We may assume this, since the amendment was passed by that body: 
afaaiai sdoge rdi ra>v iagcbv; VI.44f. The assembly t&v IctQ&v is well explained 
by Vollgraff, Verhand. 89, who compares the Athenian arrangement that the 
last two regular assemblies in a prytany had to deal first with sacred matters 
(TO. legd); see Arist. Ath. Pol. 43.6 and Sandys' note ad loc. (Aristotle 9 s Con- 
stitution of Athens*, 173). 

2 The evidence is briefly collected by Kirsten, RE s.v. Tylissos 1725. For 
a full discussion see VollgrafF, Verhand. 91-102, who also maintains from the 
evidence for identical cults that these Cretan cities were in fact colonized 
from Argos. 

3 First in BCH 1910, 334. 

4 Cf. Tod I p. 63; 1C I p. 58. 

5 As Tod, if cautiously, I pp. 62 f; Guarducci, 1C I pp. 58; 308. 

6 Especially Kirsten, Die Insel Kreta, 16 ff; RE s.v. Tylissos 1723 fF. 



ARGOS, CNOSSUS, TYLISSUS 157 

statement in the document itself that Argos was the mother 
city of Cnossus and Tylissus. 1 

Since Vollgraff 's explanation cannot be proved right others 
must be considered. A very different interpretation of the 
decree was put forward by Kahrstedt, 2 who is followed by 
Gschnitzer in a recent discussion of the subject. 3 According to 
Kahrstedt the document represents a treaty between only two 
independent states, Argos and Cnossus. Tylissus is a foreign 
possession of Argos, and this accounts for Argos' interest in 
regulating the arrangements between Cnossus and Tylissus. 
This suggestion was not considered worthy of comprehensive 
refutation by Vollgraff, 4 but since the relations of Argos, 
Cnossus and Tylissus would not belong to the subject of the 
present study, if it were correct, I discuss the matter in detail in 
Appendix V below. There I show, firstly, that the provisions of 
the decree prove that Tylissus was an independent state, not a 
piece of Argive territory, and, secondly, that the document 
cannot be taken as an agreement between two states only, 
Cnossus and Argos. Each of these demonstrations destroys 
Kahrstedt's case. We have noted the advantages in Vollgraff's 
interpretation. Since the only other interpretation that has been 
proposed is clearly unsatisfactory, we may follow Vollgraff in 
regarding Argos' position as metropolis of the Cretan cities as 
the underlying reason for the decree. 

On this interpretation the document represents one of the 
most important epigraphical additions to the evidence for the 
relations between colonies and mother cities. In the first place 
it shows that the two Cretan colonies acknowledged the general 
primacy of Argos, which gave the mother city the authority to 
establish the conditions for their agreement. It appears that the 
two cities had been at enmity, 5 and this may have been an 



1 It is true that Vollgraff restores T[vhalov anoixov ' 

io]v 

in lines 3 f of fragment I, but for a phrase which is not a formula too much 
has to be supplied for any suggestion to command much confidence. 

2 Klioxxxiv 1942, 72-91. 

3 Abhdngige Orte im griech. Altertum, ch. 10. 

4 Gf. Verhand. 91, where he says, with some justice, Je considere les 
solutions de Kahrstedt comme infirmees par Fensemble de mon commen- 
taire.' 

5 See VI. 25 ff and VollgrafF Verhand, 56 ff. These provisions about 
boundaries imply territorial disputes. 



158 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

added reason for their recourse to Argos. If they regarded them- 
selves as related by origin, their quarrel would have the shame 
attached to strife between related cities, and their mother city 
would be particularly suitable as a mediator. The situation 
would be comparable to that of Neapolis and Thasos discussed 
above, 1 where Paros may have arranged for their reconcilia- 
tion. 

The character of Argos' supremacy emerges fairly clearly 
from the document. If it is right to interpret the provision that 
Argos is to have a third of the votes in decisions about striking 
new alliances (V.g ff) as showing that Argos was to be the 
guarantor of the agreement, 2 her position was not that of a 
temporary mediator. Her authority over the affairs of Cnossus 
and Tylissus was intended to persist. This suits the general im- 
plications of the decree. Argos 3 primacy seems to be something 
accepted as normal by all parties, for, though the decree is 
incomplete, it gives the impression that it was not necessary 
to comment on the relationship of the three cities. 3 Another 
general observation of importance is that there is no sign in the 
document that Argos 5 actions were motivated by self-interest. 
Apart from the offerings to her great deity 4 she appears to have 
gained no advantage from the agreement. This is, therefore, not 
an example of control exercised over colonies by a mother city 
for her own imperial ends, 

A possible parallel to Argos' relationship with Gnossus and 
Tylissus may be found in the relations between Achaea and her 
colonies in Southern Italy. Polybius relates (11-39 1-4) that 
after the destruction of the Pythagorean Clubs there followed 
every sort of disturbance in Magna Graecia. Embassies then 
arrived from Greece offering their services as peacemakers, but 
it was the Achaeans who won the confidence of the cities of 
Magna Graecia and were entrusted with the task of ending 
their troubles. Polybius 5 intention in telling this tale is to show 
that the Achaeans possessed from an early date a very good 
political system. He does not mention Achaea's position as 
metropolis of many of the cities where the Pythagorean Clubs 

1 See Chapter V. 2 As Kirsten, RE s.v. Tylissos 1725. 

3 The uncertainty of Vollgraff's restoration T[vhaiov dnoixov A^ye,io\v 
is emphasised above, p. 157 n. i. 

4 VI. 1 6 f. Hera in the Heraeum is, of course, the great goddess of Argos; 
see Appendix V. 



ARGOS, CNOSSUS, TYLISSUS 159 

are known to have flourished, 1 but it would have weakened his 
argument about the excellence of the Achaean political system, 
and it may be regarded as possible that the Achaean interven- 
tion was accepted because of the relationship between Achaea 
and her colonies. 2 

This seems all the more likely in view of Polybius' immedi- 
ately subsequent information (11.39.5 f) that Croton, Sybaris 
and Caulonia formed a league modelled on that of the Achaeans, 
having the same league temple and god (Zeus Homarios), the 
same customs (ediopovc;), the same laws and the same con- 
stitution. All three cities were Achaean colonies, 3 but again 
Polybius does not mention this connection. However, the exact 
copying of the political arrangements of the mother country, 
and even more the choice of the same god, suggest that the 
cities were not only conscious of their origin, but also in contact 
with their metropolis. In view of this, the mediation of Achaea, 
which occurred some time before, 4 may be compared with 
Argos' supervision of the affairs of Cnossus and Tylissus. It 
seems to have been similarly disinterested, and to have been 
designed to bring about peaceful relations between quarrelling 
colonies. 

The second important aspect of the relationship between 
colony and mother city illustrated by the Argive decree is 
religious. It provides for the colonies to make a joint sacrifice 
of a cow to Argive Hera before the Hyacinthia (VI 4 f). 5 
Machaneus, on the other hand, (VI. 29) seems certainly to have 
been a Cnossian god, 6 and Poseidon in lutos (VI. 15) is connected 

1 Notably of Croton, the centre of it all; see K. von Fritz, Pythagorean 
Politics in Southern Italy* especially ch. V. 

2 This possibility is noted by Walbank, Commentary on Polybius 1.225. 

3 See Dunbabin 24, 27 f. 

4 Polybius gives no date, but only states (11.39.5) tnat the copying of the 
federal arrangements of the Achaeans occurred some time after (/zerd rtvag 
XQovovg) the Achaean intervention. The dates of both events are fully dis- 
cussed by Walbank, Commentary on Polybius I 224 if. It seems most probable 
that the Achaean intervention took place 'some time, but not very long, 
before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War' (von Fritz 79), and the copy- 
ing of Achaean institutions before 417, when the Spartans set up oligarchies 
in Achaea; see Walbank 224 f. 

5 rat Heqai sv ^Egatoi 6vsv fiov 6ehsL[av d^(por]sQOv[i; %]otvat, Qtiev 6s ngo 



6 See Appendix V. He is, however, apparently in origin an Argive deity; 
see Vollgraff, Verhand. 59 f. 



l6o COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

by Vollgraff 1 with Mount Juktas, which is near Tylissus. 
However, Poseidon was very important at Argos, 2 where there 
was also a cult of Ares and Aphrodite, 3 to whom offerings are 
also to be made (VI. 34 f). But as some of these offerings were 
almost certainly to Cretan deities, and all may have been, it is 
advisable to regard the offering to Hera as the only definite 
example in the decree of sacrifices by colonies to the gods of the 
metropolis. 

The sacrifice to the goddess of the mother city may mark, as 
Vollgraff writes, 4 Tetroite union des deux colonies et leur 
dependance de la metropole', but it is worth noting that it 
occurs among several other arrangements for sacrifices, and it 
bears the signs of being an innovation. It is necessary, for in- 
stance, to specify the nature and the time of the sacrifice to 
Hera. It may be right to conclude that mutual sacrifices be- 
tween allied states were common Cretan practice, and the 
colonies were making the offering at Argos for the first time. 
If that is so, the offering does not reveal earlier practices, but 
ideas current at the time. However, other examples of such 
religious connections show that they were a regular and im- 
portant part of the relationship between colonies and mother 
cities. 

We have already seen that when Thucydides describes 
(1.254) how the Gorcyreans neglected their mother city the 
only precise shortcoming that he mentions is their failure to 
fulfil certain religious obligations. Tor they neither gave the 
customary offerings at the common festivals, nor did they give 
the first portion of the sacrifice to a Corinthian, as the other 
colonies did.' The second part of this sentence is the only evi- 
dence that it was normal at sacrifices in the colonies to give the 
first portion to a citizen of the metropolis, but evidence for such 
a practice could be expected to be rare, especially if it was 
traditional and generally accepted, so that it need not be denied 
general application. When the scholiast adds in explanation 
Tor it was customary to bring the chief priest from the metro- 
polis', he gives away his misunderstanding of the phrase, and 
his information is therefore suspect. It too is unsupported by 
other evidence, and since it is a rather more striking practice 

1 BCH 1913, 296; Verhand. 49 f. 2 See Paus. II.xv.5; xxii.4. 

3 See Paus. ILxxv.i. 4 Verhand. 51. 



ARGOS, CNOSSUS, TYLISSUS l6l 

than that recorded by Thucydides it seems dangerous to accept 
it on the evidence of a single late and doubtful passage. 1 

The exact meaning of the first phrase in Thucydides' sen- 
tence is not agreed. Thucydides' words are sv navriyvQscri talc, 
KowaiQ dldovrsc; yega ra vofju&fisva, and the scholiast on the 
passage explained the yega as the rights of proedria and the 
like in the festivals of the colony. His explanation was ac- 
cepted by the early writers about the colony-metropolis rela- 
tionship, 2 and the fact that Thucydides is certainly referring to 
sacrifices in the colony in the second part of the sentence is in 
its favour. The practice would then be comparable with the 
privileges enjoyed by Milesians in Olbia. 3 However,, Diesterweg 
explained the phrase as referring to gifts or offerings brought to 
the festivals of the metropolis by colonists. 4 The description 
navriyvQsoi raig Koivalc, certainly seems more suitable for festivals 
of the metropolis in which the colonies took part. Since there are 
parallels to support both interpretations, it is perhaps impos- 
sible to choose with certainty between them, but the larger 
quantity of analogous instances is in favour of Diesterweg's 
view. 

We have already noted 5 that arrangements were made in the 
foundation decree for Brea for the colonists to make regular 
offerings at Athens' great festivals. 6 Colonies of Miletus had 
similar obligations to Apollo of Didyma, though the evidence 
refers to Hellenistic times. 7 In these instances the evidence is 
explicit that the colonies were to make regular offerings as a 
duty, which is also the implication of Thucydides' words, on 
Diesterweg's interpretation. In view of this, individual offerings 
of which we have record may perhaps be regarded as part of a 
regular duty. 

The earliest definite example of an offering by a colony to the 
gods of its metropolis is the seventh-century dedication by 
Gela to Athena of Lindus. 8 The words of the dedication FS^COLOL 

1 It was accepted by the earlier writers; cf. de Bougainville, op. cit., 38; 
but Diesterweg, op. cit., 25, is already suspicious of it. 

2 As, e.g., by Raoul-Rochette 43; see above p. xviii n. i. 

3 Tod 195.1 1 f; see above Chapter VI. 

4 Op. cit., p. 24. 5 See Chapter IV. 

6 Tod 44.10 f. 7 See above p. 108 with n. i. 

8 See Lindian Chronicle XXV, in Lindos, Fouilles d'Acropole, //, Inscriptions, 
by Chr. Blinkenberg; cf. Dunbabin 113. On the question of the chronicle's 
reliability see above, p. 20 n. 4. 



l62 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 



rd[i] 'Adavaiai rai HatQCDiai . . . x show both that the offering 
came from the state of Gela and that the goddess was expressly 
regarded as a deity of the fatherland. 2 The offering of Deino- 
menes, the father of Gelon, to Athena Lindia 3 in the middle of 
the sixth century is rather different, as coming from an in- 
dividual Geloan, but the offerings of Acragas to the same 
goddess in the latter half of the sixth century are, like the early 
one from Gela, from the whole community. 4 

Pausanias (III.xii-5 f) mentions a statue of Athena at Sparta, 
which was said to have been dedicated by the colonists of Taras, 
but his words (8 rove; sg *Iiakia.v rs nal TaQavra ajtoiKiaQ&vraQ 
avaBslvai Myovai) make it possible that it was supposed to have 
been dedicated by the first settlers. 5 If that is so it is unlikely 
that the tradition was correct, as an ayafya of Athena of the end 
of the eighth century 6 would have required rather more careful 
description by Pausanias. 7 It may, therefore, be assumed either 
that the attribution to Taras was incorrect, or that Pausanias' 
wording is simply a description of the inhabitants of Taras at 
some period considerably after the foundation. 8 

A large and expensive dedication to Hera of Samos by two 
Perinthians is recorded in an interesting archaic inscription. 9 
At first sight it seems to be a dedication by private individuals, 
but M. Guarducci contends that we should regard it as emana- 
ting from the state of Perinthus. 10 Apart from a new reading, 

1 'The Geloans to Athena of the fatherland. . . .' 

2 As Blinkenberg remarked in his note ad loc. in Die lindische Tempel- 
chronik (Bonn 1915). 

3 See Lindian Chronicle XXVIII, and Dunbabin 483. 

4 Lindian Chronicle XXVII, XXX. One (XXVII) is from Phalaris, but, 
as ruler, he represented Acragas. 

5 This view of the phrase's meaning is taken by Jones (Loeb), who trans- 
lates 'which is said to have been dedicated by those who left for Tarentum 
in Italy'. 

6 The traditional date of the foundation of Taras is 706. It is accepted as 
approximately correct by Dunbabin (31) and Berard (i6gf). 

7 Gf. his remarks about the wooden statue of Hermes Cyllenius in Arcadia, 
VIII.xvii.2 f. Frazer's note ad loc. mentions the many other places where 
Pausanias remarks on wooden statues; see Pausanias* description of Greece 
IV,2 45 

8 As Frazer translates, I p. 151. 

9 First published by Klaffenbach in Mitt. d. deutsch. arch. Inst. vi 1953, 
15-20; cf. Jeffery, Local Scripts of Archaic Greece 365 (no. 35). Klaffenbach 
argues for a date in the decade 580-570, but Jeffery would put it 6 c. 525' 
(P- 371)' 

10 Studi in onoredi Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni I (Milan 1956) 23-27. 



ARGOS, CNOSSUS, TYLISSUS 163 

which cannot be accepted, 1 she argues from the analogies of 
colonies which made offerings to the metropolis as a regular 
duty and from the most unusual statement of the exact cost of 
the dedication. She envisages an agreement by which the colony 
was obliged to make a dedication of this value, and the delega- 
tion of the task to the two men named. This seems a possible 
hypothesis, though it is without specific support in the text 
itself. At the least we have a clear and fairly early example of 
a dedication by colonists to the great deity of the mother city. 
There is a fourth-century inscription concerning the rela- 
tions of Epidaurus and its colony Astypalaea, 2 which provides 
for the colonists to make offerings at the mother city. As the 
wording of the decree is striking it deserves to be quoted in full: 

GSOQ. Tv%a ay add. edogs TOI$ 
'EttidavQiou; 'Aarvnahaisv- 
aiv &JIOIKOK; 'EmdavQicov 
eovaiv nal evsgyeraic; ars- 
h&iav sljjiev ndvrcov not aov- 
kiav nal ev Iqdvai %al sv no- 
hsftou KOI Kara ydv nal Kara 
ddlaaaaVj xal rd la^\&\la rd 
r&v 9 AoTmaAa[i\ecM> ns^nsa- 
[&]<u avv Ta[i r<ov] 'EnidavQccov 
[nol/fftat KO! Ovev rolg BSOL[Q] 
Zg ev * 



The express statement that Astypalaea was a colony of 
Epidaurus contradicts the information of Ps-Scymnus (551) 

1 The enigma of lines 3/4, where the two dedicators are described as 
o[qfy*i7wt (sty HsQivdioi, is perplexing; see KlafFenbach 17 f and Robert 
Bull. 1959 no. 320 (REG Ixxii 1959, 225), who dismisses Guarducci's 
attempted emendation. I suggest elsewhere in a detailed discussion of the 
crux that we should read o[T\^{ni}ot with KlafFenbach and Robert, and 
understand the word as referring to the tie of kinship between colonists and 
mother city; see JHS Ixxxiv 1964. 

2 IG IV 2 . i. 47 and commentary. 

3 { Gods. Good Fortune. Decreed by the Epidaurians. Because the people 
of Astypalaea are colonists and benefactors of the Epidaurians, they shall 
have complete immunity from taxation and be inviolable both in peace and 
war both on land and sea; and the sacred offerings of the Astypalaeans shall 
be sent in the procession of the Epidaurians, and they shall sacrifice to the 
gods of Epidaurus. . . . ' 



164 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

that it was a colony of Megara, but the statement of the in- 
scription is to be preferred, because there are other indications 
that Astypalaea was settled from the Argolid. The dialect of its 
inscriptions points to such an origin, 1 and the sanctuary of 
Asclepius on Astypalaea 2 suggests a connection with Epidaurus. 
It may be assumed that the island was a Dorian foundation 
from the Argolid of the migratory period, like Crete, Rhodes, 
Aegina and other islands. 

Among the privileges granted to the people of Astypalaea on 
the grounds that they were colonists and benefactors of Epi- 
daurus were the rights to send their offerings with the procession 
of the Epidaurians and to sacrifice to the gods of Epidaurus. 
There is little doubt that both were innovations, and it is in- 
teresting that the offerings decreed were privileges rather than 
a duty imposed on the colonists. In this the decree presumably 
reflects the special prestige of Epidaurus as a religious centre. 
The tone of the document and its express reference to Asty- 
palaea's status as a colony of Epidaurus tell against any pre- 
sumption that the relations were based on more ancient 
practices. But they reveal the way in which the relationship of 
colony and mother city was regarded in the fourth century, and 
the evidence from other colonies shows that the religious pro- 
visions were in accordance with much more ancient traditional 
practices. 

The other privileges conferred on the people of Astypalaea, 
inviolability (asylid) and tax-immunity (ateleia}, were commonly 
granted to foreign benefactors, either individuals or whole 
communities, though most of the evidence naturally comes 
from inscriptions of the fourth century or later. 3 The grant of 
ateleia is comparable with the arrangements between Olbia 
and Miletus, 4 while that of asylia implies strongly that Asty- 
palaea and Epidaurus had not kept up close relations before the 
time of the decree. 

These privileges are specific. The Argive decree about 

1 Gf. IG XII.3 p. 30 and Gollitz and Bechtel SGDIIII.i p. 209 and notes 
to nos. 3459, 3472. 



3 These terms and the evidence for them are briefly discussed in Busolt, 
Gruch. Staatskunde I 300; Busolt/ Swoboda 1242 with notes i and 2; RE s.v. 
ateleia 1911. 

4 Tod 195.6, 17 f, 21 f; see above Chapter VI. 



ARGOS, CNOSSUS, TYLISSUS 165 

Cnossus and Tylissus shows that the people of Cnossus and 
Tylissus also had privileges in their mother city. For the amend- 
ment (VI. 44 f), by which the Tylissians who came to Argos 
were to receive the same treatment as the Cnossians, presum- 
ably refers to exemptions from exactions on foreigners and the 
like, though the privileges are not specified in the parts of the 
decree preserved. They may have been specified, as Vollgraff 
suggests, 1 earlier in the decree, at the point where fragment V 
breaks off. He reads (.34 f) ai K sv Q[si n$ Kvoaiov ev<; "Aqyos? 
Whether or not this is right, the privileges enjoyed by the 
colonists who came to the mother city may be added to the 
aspects of the relationship for which the decree provides evi- 
dence. 

The relations between Argos, Cnossus and Tylissus attested 
by the inscriptions discussed are at the same time unpretentious 
and surprising. Unpretentious in that there is no far-reaching 
claim to control or exploit the colonies; surprising because they 
show that there were in the fifth century effective bonds be- 
tween a mother city and colonies settled in the migratory period. 
The relations do not depend either on special geographical 
proximity, like those of Thasos and her colonies, or on the 
ambitions of the mother city, like those of Corinth with hers; 
they are more to be compared with the kind of relations dis- 
cussed in Chapter VI, where the citizens of colonies and mother 
cities had mutual privileges without the influence of these 
special factors. As such they have great value in showing how 
close the bonds could be even when the metropolis had no 
imperial ambitions regarding the colonies, and also in showing 
the kinds of relations which were maintained in such circum- 
stances. The colonists had religious connections with the metro- 
polis, they had privileges in the metropolis when they went 
there, and, finally, they recognized the general primacy of the 
mother city, which gave her the authority to settle their 
affairs. 

1 Verhand. 39 f. 2 'If [a Cnossian] comes [to Argos].' 



CHAPTER IX 

ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL 
COLONIES 

ATHENS is most noticeably absent from the mother cities of 
the great colonizing movement in the eighth and seventh 
centuries. Her colonies belong to later times and are different 
in character from most of those founded in the earlier period. 
Some have already been discussed in Part I, as their founda- 
tions provided evidence about the role of the oikist and founda- 
tion decrees. 1 The imperial ambitions which were discerned to 
a greater or lesser extent in these foundations may be com- 
pared in this chapter with the colonies' subsequent relations to 
Athens, to see how far they were actually realized. The rela- 
tions in the same period between other mother cities and 
colonies of comparable character will need to be set beside the 
Athenian material, before general comparisons can be made 
with the colonial relationships already discussed. 

But in addition to the colonies whose foundations were dis- 
cussed in Part I there is a great deal of other Athenian colonial 
activity of relevance to the present subject. Much of this was 
by means of the settlement of cleruchies. And since any dis- 
cussion of an Athenian colony begins with the question whether 
or not it was a cleruchy, the first part of this chapter must be 
devoted to the nature of the cleruchy and to its differentiation 
from other colonies. The place of the cleruchy in Greek coloni- 
zation should also emerge from such a discussion. 

The most far-going theory advanced in recent times about the 
relations between Greek colonies and their mother cities is 
Hampl's thesis that when a colony was founded by the state its 
land remained the territory of the mother city, even when the 
colony itself formed a polis c im Rechtssinne 5 . 2 Such a city was 
therefore a Tolis ohne Territorium'. This thesis appears to 

1 See Chapters III and IV. 

2 'Poleis ohne Territorium 5 , Klio xxxii 1939, 1-60. For the general state- 
ment about colonies see p. 6. 

1 66 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 167 

demand over-formal legal distinctions which did not exist in 
Greek political life. 1 Since the Greeks were advanced in 
political thought, a striking political concept supposed to explain 
Greek political circumstances, but not found in ancient writers, 
is inevitably suspect. However, it would not be justifiable in a 
study devoted to the colony-metropolis relationship to dismiss 
on general grounds alone so bold a theory about those rela- 
tions. As Athenian colonies of the fifth century form the main 
examples on which HampFs thesis is based, we may consider 
it in detail in this chapter with the colonies in question. 

Cleruchies and doubtful cases 

The cleruchy of the fourth century and later times is well 
defined by the ancient evidence. 2 It was a settlement of Athenian 
citizens living abroad, and was clearly described as such in 
inscriptions by titles like 'the Athenians living in Myrina 3 or 
'the Athenian demos in Imbros 5 , 3 and by similar phrases in 
literary sources. 4 In their local institutions the cleruchies copied 
Athens faithfully, 5 and in every way they can be regarded as 
an extension of the Athenian state overseas. 6 

However, this is not to deny that in practice the geographical 
separation from Athens made the cleruchy different from part 
of Attica. The effect of this separation is probably reflected in 
the variation in the ethnic applied by ancient writers to the 

1 Hampl is followed by Gschnitzer, Abhdngige Orte im griech. Altertum, 
passim, but otherwise his ideas have not won wide acceptance. Kirsten, for 
instance (RE s.v. Tylissos 1727) objected that they ignored the personal 
character of Greek states and Will rejects his conclusions (La Nouvelle Clio 
vi 1954, 413 ff), though without, on the whole, criticism in detail. Cf. also 
Habicht, Gnomon xxxi 1959, 704 ff. 

2 The accounts of cleruchies in RE s.v. K^QOV^OL and in Busolt/Swoboda 
1271-9 are sound and thorough. Recently Gschnitzer has treated them 
fully and carefully, as we know them after 400, Abhdngige Orte im griech. 
Altertum 98-112. 

3 For these inscriptions see Busolt/Swoboda 1277 n. 4. 

4 E.g. [Arist.] Oec. II. 1347 a 18, 'ABrjvaloi 6s ev Horeidaia ot^owreg; 
[Dem.] VII. i o, where the wording is similar; cf. also Dem. XXIII. 103, 
where those inhabiting the Chersonese are called noMxai. 

5 Thus a cleruchy was described by Gilbert as 'bis in die geringsten 
Details ein vollstandiges Klein- Athen'; see Handbitch d. griech. Staatsalter- 
thumer (Leipzig 1881) 423. 

6 The evidence to prove that cleruchies were regarded as territory of the 
Athenian state is given by Gschnitzer 99; it is not all of equal quality, but 
the conclusion is certain. 



l68 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

fourth-century general Athenodorus. Plutarch calls him an 
Imbrian ^I^Qiog) (Phoc. XVII 1. 4), as does Aeneas Polior- 
cetes (24.10), but when Demosthenes wants to make a strong 
debating point, he writes (XXIII. 12) d ds dr] ysv&i noMrrjt; 
'AOrivodaiQOQ. 1 As Athenodorus also appears without distinguish- 
ing epithet in an inscription from Imbros, 2 it seems right to 
interpret this variation, with Foucart, 3 as showing that he came 
from a family of Athenian cleruchs on Imbros. Thus he was 
legally an Athenian citizen, but he could still be called "IjufiQiog 
because of the locality of his origin. 4 

In spite of this concession to the practical separation of a 
deruchy from Athens, however 5 the legal position of the cleruchy 
in the fourth century is not to be disputed. But the sources for 
the cleruchies of the fifth century do not provide such un- 
equivocal evidence. 5 Hence there are doubts not only about 
the status of individual settlements, but also on the whole 
question of the difference between a cleruchy and an apoikia. 
This evidence, therefore, requires more detailed consideration. 

The earliest cleruchy of which we have certain knowledge 6 is 
that described by Herodotus (V.77.2), which was settled on the 

1 'But he who is by race a citizen, Athenodorus. . . .* 2 IG XII. 8.48. 9. 

3 See BCHvii, 1883, 161 f, where the ancient references to Athenodorus 
are assembled. 

4 Note, by the way, that this is a further example to discourage modern 
scholars from drawing conclusions about legal citizenship from ethnics, 
Gf. Chapter IV. 

5 Gschnitzer notes this (98 f), and rightly stresses that the evidence of the 
fourth century does not necessarily show the legal position of the fifth, when 
the form of the cleruchy might not have been so fixed. 

6 The incomplete first Attic decree, IG P.I (Tod 1 1, SEG X.i), has been 
thought to concern an Athenian cleruchy on Salamis, founded either under 
the tyrants or after their fall. However, this view was rejected in CAH IV. 1 61 
n. 2, and it must be confessed that the contents of the document remain too 
uncertain for any definite conclusions; see my remarks in Proc. Class. Assoc. 
liii 1956, 28 f, where I show that the date is probably early in the fifth 
century and that it seems unlikely that it referred to cleruchs. On the other 
hand Hammond concludes (JHSbxvi 1956, 37 and n. 18) that Herodotus' 
description (VIII. 95) of some hoplites on Salamis as yevog eovreg 'AOqvaloi, 
shows that they were generally called Salaminioi. If he is right they could 
be compared with Athenodorus and taken to show that there were cleruchs 
on Salamis by 480. The whole question of Salamis is complicated, and it 
does seem, owing to its geographical proximity to Athens, to have occupied 
a unique position, expressed, for instance in the archon for Salamis (Arist. 
Ath. PoL 54.8), an office not paralleled among other Athenian possessions. 
There is a long and full note on questions about Salamis in Busolt/Swoboda 
871 f. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 169 

land of the Hippobotai of Chalcis in 506. In deciding the status 
of these cleruchs we should be chary of arguing from the ethnics 
used to describe them. For though Herodotus calls them 
Athenians when describing their part in the events of 490 
(VI.ioo), it has been plausibly suggested that he called them 
Chalcidians before the Battle of Artemisium (VIII. 1.2) and at 
Salamis (VIII.46.2). 1 In any case arguments from ethnics are 
weak, as has been seen. The cleruchs' position is illustrated more 
clearly by Herodotus' statement (VI.ioo.i) that when the 
Eretrians asked for Athenian support in 490, the Athenians 
replied that they could have the 4000 cleruchs. It seems likely 
that only Athenian citizens could have been used by the 
Athenian state in this way. If this conclusion is accepted, the 
most important characteristic of the cleruch, his retention of 
Athenian citizenship, is found in the first instance of which we 
know. 

In this instance the relation between the terms used and the 
circumstances described is satisfactory by modern standards. In 
keeping their original citizenship the cleruchs were a special 
type of colonist, and Herodotus uses the words ^^Qov^og (V.jy.2] 
and td?]Qov%ea) (VI.ioo.i) to refer to them. It is also apparent 
that official language at Athens in the fifth century recognized 
a distinction between a cleruchy and an apoikia] for in the in- 
complete inscription IG I 2 140 occur the words ral]g aziomiau; 
Kal KheQo%iai(tt;. It is, therefore, legitimate to assume that Attic 
inscriptions observe the distinction in their language. However, 
this is unfortunately not possible with literary sources, and the 
confusion, or rather untechnical language, of ancient writers 
has led to great variety in modern interpretations of their 
words. 

Plutarch, for instance, includes Thurii among the cleruchies 
(Per. XI.5), though this is obviously impossible in view of the 
mixed origin of the settlers. Andocides applies the word focoixiai 
to Naxos, the Chersonese and Euboea (IILg), all of which con- 
tained cleruchies. 2 Demosthenes called the fourth-century 

1 The suggestion is made by Grundy, The Great Persian War, 320; see also 
Hammond, JHS bcxvi 1956, 37 n. 18, who argues the matter in detail. 

2 Plut. Per. XL 5 for Naxos; for the Chersonese XIX. i; Euboea, because, 
even if Hestiaea is left out of account, there was a cleruchy at Chalcis in the 
second half of the fifth century; see Aelian, V.H. 6.1. On this point see the 
convincing treatment in ATL 111.296 f. 



170 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

cleruchs of Potidaea &KOMOI (Phil. 1 1. 20), although we know that 
they were cleruchs from an inscription, 1 and this at a time when 
the distinct form of the cleruchy was clear and fixed, and recog- 
nized by literary authorities, including Demosthenes himself 
on other occasions. 2 

But the most serious difficulties arise with Thucydides. Ehren- 
berg has shown convincingly that Thucydides can use the words 
apoikia and apoikos for cleruchy and cleruch. He employs the 
technical term cleruch (xfaJQov%oc;) on one occasion only, when 
he describes the establishment of the cleruchy on Lesbos after 
the Mytilenean Revolt (III. 50.2); and here he was clearly 
interested in the procedure involved. 3 Ehrenberg's arguments 
are strong, but he has not been universally followed, 4 and since 
his thesis is of great importance for the present study the main 
examples on which it is based must be considered here. The 
settlements in question, yield, in any case, important informa- 
tion about Athenian colonization. 5 

When Thucydides describes the Athenian settlement of Hes- 
tiaea in 446/5, he writes (1. 1 14.3) e Eari<ua<; 6s s^oiHiaavcsq avrol 
(sc. orAOrpafoi) rty yr\v la%ov? and in a passage referring to 41 1 
(111.95.7) he describes the settlers at Hestiaea 7 as the Athen- 
ians themselves (avrol * AQr\valoi) . However, when he lists the 
Athenian allies at Syracuse he includes ^Eanaifjg ol sv Evfioia 
c Eariaiav olxovneg twotxoi ovreg* (VII.57.2). 9 

1 Tod 146. 

2 See above p. 167. 

3 Ehrenberg put forward his view first in Aspects of the Ancient World, 
ch. IX, but the matter is fully argued in CP xlvii 1952, 143 ff. 

4 SeeATL 111.285 n. 46, though this antedates, indeed provoked, Ehren- 
berg's second study. 

5 The question of the status of Athenian colonies in the fifth century has 
been discussed by Jones, Athenian Democracy, 169 fT, but as he bases his 
work largely on the treatment of ATL 111.282-97 (see p. 168), which has 
been shown to be unsatisfactory by Ehrenberg (whose work Jones ignores), 
his study does not make another discussion superfluous. 

6 'Having expelled the Hestiaeans they themselves (i.e. the Athenians) 
occupied the land.' 

7 For the use of the name Oreos as equivalent to Hestiaea see RE Suppl. 

^749- 

8 "The Hestiaeans who inhabit Hestiaea in Euboea, being apoikoi.' 

9 On the evidence of the words OTCOIKOI, ovrsc, Hestiaea is taken not to be 
a cleruchy in Busolt/Swoboda (1274 n. *)> although they recognize else- 
where ( 1 276 n. 2) that the distinction between anoMog and ^Qov^og was not 
strictly maintained in general usage. In fact they imply in this note that the 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES IJI 

Fortunately Thucydides' phrase does not stand alone as 
evidence for the status of Hestiaea. The inscriptions /G 1 2.40-43 x 
contain Athenian regulations about Hestiaea passed after 446. 2 
They are seriously incomplete, and cannot be restored with 
certainty. However, as Gary noted, 3 the preserved passages con- 
tain key words, so that the stones can be informative even if no 
complete restoration is possible. The inhabitants of Hestiaea 
seem to be described periphrastically as, for example, o eg 
f Eanaiag (P.40.7) or TGJV oixovvrcov e[v ^Eanaiai (?) 4 (41.14). 
These phrases are reminiscent of the later descriptions of 
cleruchs in inscriptions mentioned above, 5 even though they do 
not include the name Athenian, and they are also like Thucydi- 
des' words already quoted (11.57.2). Since we know that the 
inhabitants of Hestiaea at this time were Athenians in origin, 6 
it seems reasonable to conclude with Gary (248) that these 
periphrastic descriptions were used in recognition of the fact 
that the people described, although living at Hestiaea, were 
still Athenian citizens, that is cleruchs. But as the phrases are 
robbed of their context, the matter is not certain, and other 
indications in the texts must be considered. 

The most important lines are P.42.i8-24. Although the 
restorations on which Gary based his interpretation (243-5) are 
impossible with Meritfs much shorter lines, we still definitely 
have some arrangements about taxation. For in line 21 there 
are the words drsAe Ivai ju,[eds V\va ^e/^arov, in 22 rei KVQiat, 
t,, and in 24 %Qsp,dTov sacpo^[dq ps e]vai smyas-. The 



word djioixia occurs in the inscription (s) about Hestiaea, IG 1 2.40 741, but 
this is not so. 

1 The latest texts of parts of these appear in Hill Sources 2 6.54, where it 
is noted that 43 (reverse) and perhaps 42 belong to 40, and 43 belongs to 41. 

2 The date is given as Very soon after the Thirty Years Peace' in ATL 
111.301 n. 4. 

3 JHSxlv 1925, 243 ff. His rather confident conclusions about the docu- 
ments are, however, to be treated with caution, for Meritt has since demon- 
strated that the earlier restorations are precluded by the fact that the lines 
were probably much shorter than was once thought; see A TL loc. cit. and 
Hill Sources* 302 f. 

4 'the man from Hestiaea*, 'those living in [Hestiaea]*. The restoration in 
the second passage seems likely and was generally made in earlier editions 
(e.g. IG P.4i), but Meritt makes no supplement to the letters on the stone; 
see Hill Sources 2 303. 

5 See p. 167. 

6 Gary (248 n. 15) lists the other sources for the events, all of which 
support Thucydides (1.114.3). 



1^2 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

main question raised by these lines is whether the tax in ques- 
tion is the Athenian eisphora* 

It is clear from the literary evidence that the word elacpogd 
without xQTjfidrov but in combination with eiays^siv had the 
technical meaning of war tax in the fifth century, and was so 
understood by all Athenians. 2 It is used with xgrifidrcov, as in the 
inscription, by Xenophon (TM.VI.ii.i), and Jones translates 
'(worn out by) levies of war tax'. 3 Plato's use of the same word- 
ing (Laws 955 d), however, does not refer to the Athenian tax. 
In fourth-century epigraphical texts the word occurs regularly 
to denote the Athenian tax, 4 but in the fifth century it only 
appears as wholly, if reasonably, restored in the second of 
Callias 5 decrees, where it also has the technical sense. 5 

These analogies do not lead to a completely clear-cut con- 
clusion, though they make it a reasonable assumption that in 
an Attic decree of the second half of the fifth century the words 
XQ^jidrcDV efoyoQag would refer to the Athenian war tax. This is 
supported by a further argument. Gary was surely right to 
conclude (245) that the xvQlai K%Ar]aiai must, in an Athenian 
document, be the Athenian assembly. If so, it was the main 
Athenian assembly which had to deal with exemption from the 
tax in question. This suggests that it was an Athenian tax, not, 
for example, some local payment in Hestiaea. It seems, there- 
fore, that the words xgrj^drtov elayoQdg should be referred to the 
Athenian war levy. Such a tax was imposed on Athenian 
citizens, and so the settlers of Hestiaea should be regarded as 
cleruchs. 6 

Aegina and Melos are two other Greek states which the 
Athenians settled themselves after expelling the previous in- 
habitants, 7 The status of Aegina has been fully discussed by 

1 The tax, as it was in the fourth century, is discussed by Jones, Athenian 
Democracy, 23 flf- see Gomme, 11.278 f, on the questions about eisphora in 
the fifth century. 

2 See Antiphon II.2.I2; Lysias XXX.26; Thuc. Ill.ig.i. 

3 See Athenian Democracy, 29. 

4 See 76? IP 141.35 ft 237-2? ft 35 l -3 I ft 55-'4; cf. Jones, 23 ff. 

5 ATL II D2.I7; Gornme argues (11.278) that the way it is mentioned 
here shows that it was a familiar levy. 

6 This interpretation explains Thucydides* description of the settlers as 
avroi 'Adrjvaioi (VIII.95.7) more easily than the view that he is only express- 
ing their origin, as Jones, Athenian Democracy, 169. 

7 Thuc. II.27.I; V.i 16.4. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 173 

Ehrenberg, 1 who shows that the late sources which state or 
imply that it was a cleruchy should hardly be dismissed on the 
assumption that Thucydides' descriptions of the settlers as 
anoixoi or enoinoP have a strict technical sense. It should be 
noticed that Thucydides describes these Athenian settlers in 
terms that recall his description of those at Hestiaea: Aiywfjrai, 
ol TOTS Alyivav el%ov* (Vll/jy.a). 

The words of Thucydides (.1164) in describing the settle- 
ment of Melos have also been taken 4 as evidence that it was not a 
cleruchy: TO 8s %^Lov avrol &Kiaav, OJIOMOVS varsQov nevraKoaiov<; 
ns^ipavrsQ. 5 If we leave on one side the word ajtoinov^ the only 
indication of the settlement's character in this sentence is the 
exact number 500. In Plutarch's list of Athenian cleruchies 
(Per. XI) many exact numbers of settlers are given, even down 
to 250 on Andros, while exact numbers of this sort are not re- 
ported for any undisputed Athenian apoikia. 6 This is not a 
sure indication that Melos was a cleruchy, since some limita- 
tion of numbers must have been necessary in any settle- 
ment where the territory was limited, but it points in that 
direction. 

A funerary inscription found on Melos, which may be dated 
with some confidence to the period of the Athenian occupation, 7 
is the only other evidence bearing on the question. In this one 
Eponphes (*Enav<ptfs} describes himself first as an Athenian, and 
then of the phyle Pandionis and the deme Kytheros. As 
Homolle pointed out, 8 this formula is not normal. On Attic 
funerary inscriptions the name of the dead man is followed 
regularly by the name of the father and the deme, the latter 
being sufficient to indicate the man's quality as an Athenian. 

1 CP xlvii 1952, 145 f. 

2 11.27.1; VIII.6g.3 and perhaps VII. 57.2. 

3 *The Aeginetans who then occupied Aegina.' 

4 As, surprisingly, by Ehrenberg loc. cit. 

5 'The territory they settled themselves, sending out afterwards 500 
colonists (apoikoi).' 

6 The identification of the 1000 settlers sent to the land of the Bisaltai 
(Plut. Per. XI.s) with the Athenian colony at Brea is conjectural; see Wood- 
head, CQ n.s. ii 1952, 60; and the numbers recorded of the settlers at 
Amphipolis and Thurii have not the same exactness as those relating to 
cleruchies; see above, Chapter III. 

7 IG XII-3.II87, first published by Homolle, BCH i 1877, 44 ff, whose 
dating has been followed by subsequent editors. 

8 Op. cit. 45. 



174 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

The explanation of the unusual description offered by Hiller 1 
is ingenious and plausible. The form of the name *Enovcpri<; is 
like that of KAiovyas, a known Melian name. The man is, 
therefore, taken to be a Melian who was given Athenian citizen- 
ship as a reward, it is conjectured, for betraying Melos to the 
Athenians. 2 It is known from the treatment of the Plataeans in 
427 that the Athenians could grant citizenship to foreigners at 
this period, 3 and the natural reward for a traitor would have 
been to exempt him from the sentence of death and leave him 
in possession of his property on Melos. In order to allow the 
latter, if Melos became an Athenian cleruchy, it was necessary 
to make the Melian an Athenian citizen. It seems, therefore, 
that the probable conclusion from Eponphes' epitaph is that 
Melos was a cleruchy. 

Melos, Aegina and Hestiaea were all settled by the Athenians 
in the second half of the fifth century after the expulsion of 
Greek inhabitants. The Athenian settlements on Lemnos, Im- 
bros and Scyros were somewhat earlier, and followed the ex- 
pulsion of non-Greek populations. But these too are doubtful 
cases, although there is more evidence bearing on the question 
of their status. 

The three islands often occur together in fourth-century 
writers as overseas possessions of Athens. 4 At that time too 
there were cleruchies on all of them. Demosthenes, for example, 
when enumerating bellicose acts of Philip, says (Phil. 1.34) 
ov% . . . slg Afj/Livov %al "IpfiQov sjuflaAobv ai%ju,aA,a)Tov<; noMrag 
v{iTQov<; fayzt %w, 5 and Scyros is listed with Samos, Imbros 
and Lemnos as overseas possessions to which Athens sent 
officers. 6 But though the fourth-century and later evidence gives 
a clear picture of islands regarded as Athenian possessions and 
occupied by Athenian cleruchs, that from the fifth century is 
not so simple. Most of this evidence concerns Lemnos (though 

1 See notes to IG XII.3.1 187. 

2 j-j luc ^ v eII 6^ : yevo/tevriQ xal nqodoaiat; nvog.. 
3 See[Dem.]LIX.i04ff. 

4 e.g. Aeschines 11.76; Xen. Hell. V.i-s; Andocides 111.14. 

5 'Did he not invade Lemnos and Imbros and take away your citizens as 
prisoners when he left?' There was a cleruchy on Lemnos by 387/6; see 
IG IP.so, with notes; this inscription is discussed below, p. 187. 

6 Arist. Ath. Pol. 62.2; cf. also 7^X11.8.688. i f, [dedo%6at, T&I fypcoi rwv 

rcov XCLTOMOVVTOQV 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 175 

Imbros may reasonably be assumed to have had a very similar 
history), 1 so Lemnos must dominate any discussion of the three 
islands in the fifth century. 2 

The Athenian settlement on Lemnos in the early years of the 
fifth century 3 followed the expulsion of the previous Pelasgiam 
inhabitants. 4 From that time on, unless all the literary evidence 
is rejected, the population of Lemnos was of Athenian origin. 
A Corinthian helmet of late archaic style found at Olympia is 
inscribed with the words 'AOevaloi \r\qv sy A/w[o], and it is a 
reasonable conjecture that it was a dedication from the spoils 
taken at the time of the island's capture. 5 In which case, as 
Kunze points out, 6 the wording implies that the capture and 
settlement of the island was an official Athenian venture. 

The first evidence for its subsequent position relates to the 
Persian Wars. The Persians won control of the island, for 
Herodotus reports that there was a Lemnian contingent in the 

1 It is generally thought that Imbros had an identical history to that of 
Lemnos throughout, as it certainly appears to have had from the time of the 
Peloponnesian War onwards; see e.g. Busolt 11.531. 

2 Will has a long note on the status of Lemnos (La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 
442 n. 2), but it is doubtful if this is adequate for so complex a problem. 

3 The date is not recorded, but there are good reasons for attributing the 
occupation to the time of the Ionian Revolt; see Bengtson, Sitz. Bayr. Akad. 
I 937? 28 ff; D. Mustilli, 'L'occupazione ateniese di Lemnos' in Studi di 
antichita classica qfferti da colleghi e discepoli a Emanuele Ciaceri (Rome, 1940); 
Seltman, Athens^ its history and coinage, 141 f, and Wade-Gery (JHS Ixxi 1951, 
2 1 7) . A much higher date for the arrival of Athenians on Lemnos was main- 
tained by Segre, on the basis of a boundary stone of the temenos of Artemis, 
which he dated to c. 550; see Annuario della R. Scuola di Atene xv-xvi, 1932-3, 
294 ff. His dating was accepted as certain by Robert, Bull. 1949, 135 (REG 
bdi 1949, p. 133)5 but it rests entirely on an out-of-date view of the signifi- 
cance of the form of M on Attic inscriptions (see 296 n. i); for M with a 
shorter right hasta, which was thought to indicate a date before 550, occurs 
in the inscription IG I 2 , i, which must be dated at the earliest to the first two 
decades of the fifth century; see above p. 168 n. 6, and, for a photograph, 
Kirchner, Imagines Inscriptionum Atticarum, 13. Other letters on the horos 
inscription are also like those of IG L 2 i, as A, E, so it should most probably 
be dated to c. 500 or later. 

4 The literary references are given above p. 32 n. 5; cf. also Thucydides' 
description of the inhabitants of Akte (IV. 109.4) r6 d nMatov ZZeAaoy^oV, 
rwv Hal Arjjuvov note KOLL *AQr)va<; TvQdrjv&v olxrjadvrcov. No trace of the Pela- 
gasian inhabitants which postdated c. 500 was found by the Italian excava- 
tors; see Mustilli, op. cit. 158. 

5 'The Athenians from the spoils from Lemnos.' The helmet is published 
and discussed by E. Kunze, Festschrift fur Carl Weickert, 7-2 1 ; see especially 

19 f- . 

6 p. 20. 



176 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Persian fleet (VIII. 11.3; 82). In the first of these passages he 
reports that In the sea-battle Antidorus the Lemnian alone of 
the Greeks with the Great King (^Avrldcogog Ar)ju,vio$ /tovvo$ rcov 
aw jtaffdi 'Etttfvw sovrw} deserted to the Greek side. There 
should be no doubt that these Lemnians were the Athenian 
settlers. The population of Lemnos was of Athenian origin 
after Miltiades' capture and settlement of the island, and Hero- 
dotus' 'EMrjvcov rules out any question of the earlier non-Greek 
population. 1 

The fact that the Persians treated the Athenian settlers in 
Lemnos as subjects, like other Greeks in Asia Minor, could be 
held to show that they were not Athenian citizens. For Athens 
was not offered the choice of submitting to the Great King. 2 
But this argument, standing alone, cannot be pressed, as their 
place of residence could in practice have outweighed their 
legal citizenship. Slightly stronger arguments may perhaps be 
found in the Athenian treatment of Antidorus. 

He was rewarded for his desertion by a grant of land on 
Salamis. 3 It is perhaps tempting to argue that this shows that 
the Athenians had no right of disposal over the land of Lemnos; 
but if the award was made immediately, not only had they no 
reason to assume that they would quickly clear the Persians 
from the whole Aegean, they were even prevented from giving 
him land in Attica by the evacuation following the Battle of 
Artemisium. Will makes another suggestion, 4 that the gift of 
land on Salamis 'en territoire derouchique" (Will's italics) might 
show that they were establishing him in the same situation that 
he had occupied before. But it would surely be more likely that 
he was rewarded by an improvement in status. Further, if he 
ranked as an Athenian citizen, his desertion was not so much 
praiseworthy as his plain duty; and, though one hesitates to use 
the argument from silence, it seems doubtful that Herodotus 

1 Meyer suggested (Forschungen zur alien Geschichte 1.14) that the Persians 
would certainly have brought the old inhabitants of Lemnos back, had they 
only recently been expelled. Busolt, however (11.531 n. 2) points out rightly 
that this is not only pure conjecture, but also unlikely in view of the fighting 
between the Persians and the Tyrsenian inhabitants of Lemnos of not long 
before; see Hdt. V.ay, which suggests that a large part of the population was 
annihilated, and Diod. X.ig.6, where the Tyrsenians are said to have 
forsaken their homes from fear of the Persians. 

2 Hdt. VII.32. 3 Hdt. VIII.ii.3. 
4 La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 441. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 177 

could have passed over this status, when he was making a 
special point of the desertion. 

The tendency of all these arguments is against the idea that 
Lemnos was a cleruchy at this time, and though none of them is 
compelling, they gain in strength from Lemnos 5 position as a 
tribute-paying ally in the League of Delos. In the list of 452/1 
the Lemnians (Aepvioi) pay nine talents, 1 and later the two 
cities of Lemnos, Hephaestia and Myrina, pay tribute regu- 
larly. It was suggested in the past, in the face of the consistent 
testimony of the literary sources, that this tribute was paid by 
the remnants of the pre- Athenian population, 2 but this attempt 
to avoid deciding either that cleruchs could pay tribute, or that 
the Lemnian settlers were not cleruchs, must be rejected; a very 
considerable number of Pelasgians would have had to remain to 
pay nine talents. 

The payment of tribute by an Athenian settlement cannot be 
considered an automatic criterion of status, for it can be shown 
that no Athenian settlement founded after the Persian Wars, 
whatever its status, paid tribute, 3 and the only absolutely cer- 
tain cleruchy founded earlier, that at Chalcis, did not survive 
into the time of the Athenian Empire. On the other hand it 
seems very improbable that cleruchs would pay tribute. 4 They 
remained Athenian citizens, as the evidence from the cleruchy 
at Chalcis shows, so that the payment of tribute to Athens, 
which implies the position of an ally of Athens, would be an 
extraordinary anomaly. The conclusion follows that the pay- 
ment of tribute suggests very strongly that the first Athenian 
settlers on Lemnos were not cleruchs. 

On the other hand, some inscriptions from Lemnos have been 
thought to prove the opposite conclusion. The first of these is a 
list of names arranged according to the Cleisthenic tribes, which 
was dated by its lettering to not later than the first quarter of the 
fifth century. 5 This has been taken to prove that the first settlers 

i ATL II list 3, 1.2. 2 See e.g. 76? XII.8 p. 3. 

3 See A TL III 285 ff. Although not all their examples are of equal weight, 
Potidaea, which disappears from the tribute lists after ^the Athenians 
occupied it, seems to be sufficient to prove their point; for its status seems 
assured by the inscriptions Tod 60 and ATL II Dai, where the settlers are 
called enowot. 

4 It is assumed to be impossible in ATL III 290. 

5 The inscription is quoted under IG 1*948; it was first published by 
Picard and Reinach, #xxxvi 1912, 331 fF. 



178 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

were cleruchs. 1 However, as Berve rightly pointed out, 2 the 
retention of the Athenian tribes does not prove that the colo- 
nists kept their citizenship. The tribal divisions in the metro- 
polis were regularly maintained in colonies. 3 

Two other inscriptions fromLemnos which have been thought 
to prove that there was a cleruchy there by at latest the early 
fifth century are records of legal encumbrances. 4 But only one is 
of sufficiently early date to bear on the status of the first settle- 
ment and it gives no indication that that settlement was a 
cleruchy, 5 As none of these inscriptions contradicts the other 
evidence, it may be concluded with some confidence that the 
first Athenian settlement on Lemnos was not a cleruchy. 6 

In the tribute list of 444/3 the island's tribute is recorded 
against the names of its two cities, Hephaestia and Myrina, and 
together they pay four and a half talents. 7 The tribute paid by 
the island was thus halved at some time between 452/1 and 
444/3. Kirchhoff suggested that the reason for this was that 
cleruchs had been settled on the island, 8 and supported his con- 
jecture by analogous cases. For instance, Pericles sent a cleruchy 
to the Thracian Chersonese at the same period, 9 and the tribute 
of the Chersonese apparently fell from eighteen talents to one 
talent between 452/1 and 442/1. Much of this enormous re- 
duction is to be attributed to the fact that a former syntelda of the 
XeQQov7}alT(u was divided into the several cities of the area. 10 

1 As, e.g., by Ehrenberg, Aspects of the Ancient World, 135 f, who is thus 
led to conclude that what he calls a 'municipal cleruchy* could pay tribute. 

2 Militiades, Hermes Einzelschriften 2, 1937^ 51 f. 

3 See RE s.v. Phylai 1002. 

4 Published by M. Segre, Annuario della R. Scuola di Atene xv-xvi 1932/3, 
no. ii, 305 f, no. 12, 306 f. 

5 See my note in Historia xii 1963 127 f, where the inscriptions and their 
significance are discussed. 

6 Will seems to miss the significance of the payment of tribute, at least, 
when he concludes (La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 449) that we cannot decide if 
Lemnos was a cleruchy or not at the beginning; and this in spite of the fact 
that he seems to realize earlier (442) that the payment of tribute is hard to 
reconcile with the status of a cleruchy. 

7 ATL II list 11, V.30, 31. 

8 Abhand. d. preuss. Akad., Phil. Hist. Klasse, 1873, 34. 

9 Plut. Per. XIX. i: ; the date is not certain but the modern inference that 
it was in the early forties is probable; see Gomme 1.376-80. 

10 See Ehrenberg, Aspects of the Ancient World, 125 n. i. The Xsq^ov^alrai 
of the lists from at latest 442/1 are almost certainly the people of a single 
city sometimes more precisely designated as XeQ^ovqalrat, an "AyoQa^ see 
ATL I Register s.v. and Ehrenberg, 126. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 179 

But there was also a real drop in the tribute from the area, and 
the modern inference that this is to be explained by the arrival 
of Pericles' cleruchs seems likely to be correct. 1 

Although Kirchhoff 's suggested explanation for the halving 
of Lemnos' tribute has not been effectively attacked, 2 it is true 
that there may have been other reasons for the lowering of 
tribute. At this time there were a number of reductions which 
were not connected with colonizing activity. 3 However, on the 
one occasion when Thucydides describes in detail the estab- 
lishment of a cleruchy, its settlement is expressly linked with the 
tribute: varegov ds ^OQOV OVH eragav A&afiiou;, xArJQovQ de noiri- 
cravreg rfjs yfjs nrl^ (111.50.2). In view of this and the other 
analogies Kirchoff 's explanation of the halving of Lemnos' 
tribute must be considered very reasonable, especially as some 
serious change is required for so large a reduction. 

However, since the explanation is conjectural, it is necessary 
to consider other evidence for the status of Lemnos in the 
second half of the fifth century. Two lists of the fallen in the 
early part of the Peloponnesian War inscribed at Athens are 
relevant to this question. 5 The first (IG 1 2.947) contains a list 
of names arranged by tribes headed by the title 'Lemnians from 
Myrina' (Arj^vicov ly MvQivfyt;}. In the second (948) there is a 
list of names, headed by the tribal designation, under which 
comes, as a sub-title, the name Lemnians (Ari^vioi}. The literary 
evidence has shown that the ethnic cannot be taken as a 
certain criterion of citizenship, 6 so that the name A^JLIVLOL in 
these inscriptions does not of itself preclude the possibility that 
the dead were Athenian cleruchs. 7 

In the second inscription the Lemnians are merely a section 
of a larger list of names of the same tribe. They were therefore 

1 Gf. Ehrenberg, 126. 

2 Picard's and Reinach's criticism of it (BCHxxxvi 1912, 333 ff) is almost 
entirely vitiated by their confusion of Myrina on Lemnos with the other 
Myrina later more specifically described as MvQiva naga Kv^rjv (ATL I 
Register s.v.). 

3 These are studied by Ehrenberg, Sophocles and Pericles, 124-9. 

4 'After this they did not impose tribute on the Lesbians, but divided their 
land into lots, etc.' 

5 IG I 2 . 947, 948; they are dated by the lettering to not much later than 
the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. 

6 See above pp. 103 ff, 168; cf. ATL 111.293. 

7 Against Will, who discusses these inscriptions in La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 
444-7. 



l8o COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

listed with members of the tribe at Athens, and it might be 
thought difficult to differentiate them from full Athenian citi- 
zens. 1 In the first inscription the Lemnians do not occur side 
by side with Athenians, so they are not subject to the same 
argument. These certainly need not have been cleruchs; for 
their retention of the Cleisthenic tribes, as has been seen, 2 does 
not prove that they had Athenian citizenship. The evidence of 
these two lists must be judged inconclusive, 3 though in the 
second it seems more probable that the Lemnians were cleruchs. 

The second of the stones recording legal encumbrances men- 
tioned above 4 is also relevant to this question. It is to be dated 
to the second half of the fifth century and one of the partici- 
pants in the transaction had an Athenian demotic. It seems 
reasonable to conclude that this man, Euainetos, was an 
Athenian citizen and therefore that there was a cleruchy on 
Lemnos in the second half of the fifth century. 5 

If there was a cleruchy on Lemnos in the second half of the 
fifth century, and the original settlement was not a cleruchy, 
KirchhofFs conjecture from the evidence of the tribute lists that 
a cleruchy was established in the forties seems very probable. 
In any case we know that about the time of the Peloponnesian 
War there were on Lemnos both cleruchs and non-cleruchs. 6 
A surprising conclusion perhaps, but, on the evidence available, 
apparently inescapable. 

It might seem strange to imagine two communities, both of 
Athenian origin but of different status, living on Lemnos, 7 and 
it would be easier if it could be assumed that the cleruchs, 
although they owned land on Lemnos, still lived at Athens. In 
order to explain the considerable rise in hoplite numbers at 
Athens in the second half of the fifth century, Jones has ad- 
vanced the thesis that in the time of the Athenian Empire 

1 Jones' argument (Athenian Democracy, 173), that in a war memorial dis- 
tinctions of citizenship might be considered unimportant, seems uncon- 
vincing. 

2 Above, p. 178. 

3 They have often been thought to refer to cleruchs, as, for instance, by 
the editors of IG I and I 2 and the authors of ATL (Ill.aga). 

4 See above p. 178. 

5 For a full discussion of the inscription, its date and significance, see my 
note in Historia xii 1963, 127 f. 

6 This is the conclusion of the authors of ATL (III. 292). 

7 The difficulty is played down in ATL loc. cit. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES l8l 

cleruchs did not leave Athens. 1 They let their allotments, and 
remained in Athens with hoplite status. There are attractive 
points in Jones' thesis, and it must be considered possible that 
cleruchs sometimes did not reside on their lots. But special 
pleading is required to discount all the evidence for cleruchs 
residing abroad, 2 and if the arguments about the status of 
Hestiaea, Aegina and Melos are accepted, cleruchs were some- 
times sent to settle areas from which the previous population 
had been expelled. 

With regard to Lemnos the only evidence of any clear value 
seems to be, once again, the horos of Euainetos. He was an 
Athenian citizen, and he had rights to property on Lemnos. 
The nature of his financial transaction, as Finley has rightly 
described it, 3 makes it improbable that he was at a long dis- 
tance from the land involved. The system of recording the fact 
that land was encumbered by simply planting a mortgage in- 
scription is a sign of fairly primitive arrangements, in which 
personal inspection of the property was normal. On Jones' 
thesis the cleruchs were ex-Thetes at Athens. It seems inher- 
ently unlikely that they all became absentee-landlords of pro- 
perty they did not know. Similarly Jones' objection about the 
cleruchy on Lesbos, that the cleruch would have no house to 
go to, if his lot was worked, as before, by the Mytilenean oc- 
cupier, would only be valid if the houses of that period were big 
and complicated buildings. So that, in addition to the more 
definite counter arguments, there seems to be some inherent 
improbability in the idea that no cleruchs of the fifth century 
resided on their lots. It seems very difficult, therefore, to assume 
that there was a fixed rule that cleruchs did not reside abroad, 
and the question about the population of Lemnos after the 
cleruchy was established remains. 

In the four references to Lemnians (and Imbrians) in Thucy- 
dides it is not perfectly clear whether they are cleruchs or not. 

1 Athenian Democracy 168-76. 

2 E.g. Thucydides* word dnsne^tpav (111.50.2) regarding the cleruchs on 
Lesbos (one of the best examples for Jones' hypothesis), which Jones sug- 
gests may be *a term of art* (175), not to mention other evidence for Athen- 
ians living on land abroad (176), of whom Jones can only say that they are 
not stated to be cleruchs. Thus it is not surprising that Jones' suggestion has 
not been well received; see Gomme JHS Ixxix 19593 64 and Galder CP liv 



3 See Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, especially 13 ff. 



l82 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

In two, I .28.4 and V.8.2, there is no indication of the status 
of the Lemnians and Imbrians mentioned. At III.5.2. the words 
"IpflQioi Hal AriiJivioi KCLI TOJV &A2cov oXiyoi TIVSQ gv/t/tdxcov, 1 - if 
pressed, show that the Lemnians and Imbrians counted as 
allies, but the most important passage is VII. 57.2,* for here 
there are other communities with which to compare them. The 
sentence is difficult to punctuate and interpret with certainty, 
but the way in which it should, in general, be understood, has 
been shown by Ehrenberg, 3 The four communities, Lemnians, 
Imbrians., Aeginetans and Hestiaeans, are very closely con- 
nected with Athens, and are distinguished from the subject and 
tribute-paying allies. On the other hand they are also dis- 
tinguished from the Athenians. 

Gomme thought that the grouping together of the four com- 
munities should suggest identity or close similarity of status, 4 
but, as Ehrenberg noted, whatever their status, they are not 
on the face of it identical, because two of the communities paid 
tribute and two did not. He suggests, therefore, that the common 
factor expressed in the words cwoixoi ovtes is sufficient to ex- 
plain their special position in Thucydides' list. This seems very 
reasonable, but to test it thoroughly it is necessary to see what 
follows if Thucydides words are pressed. 

Two of the communities, Aegina and Hestiaea, were most 
probably cleruchies; 5 in strict theory, therefore, they should be 
included with the Athenians. The other two paid tribute; in 
strict theory they should belong with the tribute-paying allies. 
The latter problem would be avoided if these Lemnians and 
Imbrians were the cleruchs, not the tribute-paying settlers; 
they would then be like the Aeginetans and Hestiaeans and 
subject to the same theoretical objection. This possibility, how- 

1 'Imbrians and Lemnians and a few of the other allies.' 

2 9 A6r]vatoi pev avroi "Icoveg em AcoQiag UvQaxoelovg exovTeg tfWov, KOI 
avrolg Tfj avrfj (pcovfj HGLI vo/tiftoig ert %Q(t>/j,evoi A^VIQI xal "I^qioi KCLI 
AlyivfJTai, ol TOTS Aiywav sl%ov, xal en, 'EaTtcufjg ol ev Evpoiq'EaTiatav 
olxovvTeg anoLKoi ovreg $weaTQ(hevcra.v. The punctuation here is that of the 
Oxford Text. I offer a translation which does not conceal the ambiguities 
in Thucydides' sentence: *The Athenians, being themselves lonians went 
voluntarily against the Dorian Syracusans, and those who still used the 
same dialect and customs as themselves, the Lemnians and the Imbrians and 
the Aeginetans, who then occupied Aegina, and also the Hestiaeans who 
lived in Hestiaea on Euboea, being colonists, joined in the campaign.' 

3 CP xlvii 1952, 147 ff. 4 See 1.375 n. i. 
5 The arguments for this conclusion are set out above pp. 170 ff. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 183 

ever, would be excluded if Ehrenberg is right in assuming 1 that 
Thucydides 3 words rfj avrfj qxovfj teal vofjii^oiq en xg>(hfjievoi could 
only apply to the first settlers. He thinks that On must refer to a 
fair span of time, and the first settlers were established eighty 
years before, the cleruchs not more than thirty. On this view 
the Lemnians and Imbrians must be the tribute-paying allies; 
but it is not necessarily right. 

In reading the sentence alone it is perhaps difficult to decide 
whether the phrase rfj avrfj (pcovfj Hal vofniflou; en XQWJUGVOI is to be 
confined to the Lemnians and Imbrians or applied also to the 
Aeginetans and Hestiaeans. The latter interpretation, however, 
seems easier, and is that of the editor of the Oxford text, as his 
punctuation reveals. If so, Thucydides was ready to apply the 
words Sri xQcb/tsvoi to the settlers on Aegina in 431. Although 
this seems unlikely at first sight it is not difficult to explain in the 
context of Thucydides' whole chapter. As has been seen, 2 he is 
stressing the origin of states in order to show how the war had 
cut across the alignments based on ties of kinship that he con- 
sidered right. He is conscious of relationship at the expense of 
chronology. The Ionian allies were of Athenian origin 
(VII. 57.4) and this was important to him, however many cen- 
turies separated them from Athens. Cretan mercenaries who 
fought against Geloans were also shocking to his ideas (57.7), 
although we may question whether they knew or cared that 
Cretan settlers had joined in the colonization of Gela two and a 
half centuries earlier. Colonial relationships are the theme of 
his chapter, and in such a context the position of the four com- 
munities under discussion was separate and special. Of those 
present these alone were not only of Athenian origin but still 
Athenians in customs and dialect. This view of the sentence not 
only accounts for the application of the words en ^co^evoi to 
colonists of at most eighty years standing, but also makes futile 
any attempt to force conclusions about legal status from Thucy- 
dides 5 words or arrangement. The Lemnians and Imbrians 
could be cleruchs, as the Aeginetans and Hestiaeans probably 
were, but the sole and sufficient common factor is that they 
were all settlements of Athenians abroad on land from which 
the previous population had been entirely expelled. 

This long discussion has shown that Ehrenberg's view about 
1 Op. cit. 148. 2 See Chapter I. 



184 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

the lack of distinctions in Thucydides' language about cleruchies 
and colonies is correct. Just as Demosthenes and later writers, 1 
so Thucydides also could embrace cleruchies in his general con- 
cept of colony and colonist expressed by the words cutoima, 
wioiKos and enowog. A study of the fifth-century evidence about 
Lemnos is sufficient to complete the argument for that conclu- 
sion, but for the significance of Lemnos, Imbros and Scyros in 
general in Athenian colonization the fourth-century evidence 
must also be considered. 

As we have seen, 2 in the fourth century Lemnos, Imbros and 
Scyros were Athenian cleruchies, and generally recognized to be 
Athenian territory. In the fifth century some of the inhabitants 
of Lemnos were not cleruchs, though the islands were, in 
general terms, obviously Athenian possessions. It is not easy to 
understand how the fifth-century situation developed into that 
of the fourth. Any difference between them must have been the 
result of events between c. 404 and c. 394/3, 3 but before the 
happenings of those years are discussed we have still to con- 
sider the fifth-century status of Scyros. 

Thucydides describes the Athenian settlement of Scyros in 
these words: 

sneira HKVQOV rrjv ev rco Alyaico vfjaov, ir\v &KOVV AoXoneg, rjvdQarto- 
diaav Hal &maav avrol. 4 * 

In view of what has been said about Thucydides' wording it is 
wrong to look for any sure indication in his expression whether 
or not the settlement was a cleruchy. 5 But it is worth noting that 
the words &Kioav avrol were also used by Thucydides to describe 
the settlement of Melos (.116.4) which, as we have seen, was 
probably a cleruchy. 6 Diodorus' use of the word xarexhjQoti%- 
f]as (XI.6o.2) is also inadmissible as evidence; it need not imply 

1 See above p. i6gf. 

2 See above p. 1 74. 

3 Since the Athenians were in possession of the islands by the spring of 
392, when Antalcidas went to Tiribazus (Xen. Hell. IV.viii.i5), it is reason- 
ably assumed that they recovered them some time after, and as a result of, 
the Battle of Gnidus in August 394; see, e.g., Bengtson GG 2 .259. 

4 'Then they enslaved the population of Scyros, the Aegean island, who 
were Dolopians, and settled it themselves.' 

5 Ehrenberg argues from Thucydides' usage that the word 
to imply that Scyros was an apoikia; CP xlvii 1951, 145. 

6 See above pp. 173 f. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 185 

a cleruchy, 1 However his information (ibid.) that Cimon set up 
a founder (*m'<my) 2 there might be thought to show that it was 
a regular colony rather than a cleruchy. But even this cannot be 
maintained, since we hear of oikists in connection with a 
cleruchy. 3 As has been seen, the fact that Scyros did not pay 
tribute is also no criterion. There is, in fact, no certain evidence 
for Scyros' status until the fourth century, when it was a 
cleruchy. 

As Scyros was a cleruchy in the fourth century, it would be 
most natural to conclude that it had the same status in the fifth. 
Otherwise, unless there was a complete change of population in 
some way, one would have to assume that a people who had 
not had Athenian citizenship for two to three generations were 
suddenly made Athenian citizens, which seems improbable. On 
the other hand, if Scyros was a cleruchy in the fifth century, 
Andocides' account of its situation after Sparta's victory in the 
Peloponnesian War becomes difficult to understand. He is con- 
trasting the provisions of the peace in 404 with those of the 
King's Peace, and says (III. 12): 



v de Hal "IjufiQov KOI EKVQQV TOTS JJL&V e%eiv TOVQ s%ovTa<;, vvv 
de r]/j,8T()a<; elvai* 

The words e%iv TOVQ e%ovTa<; must be judged in the light of the 
Spartan treatment of Athenian settlers abroad. We know that 
Lysander resettled in their homes Greeks who had been ex- 
pelled, 5 and he also sent back to Athens Athenian garrisons 
and si Tivd nov ahhov Idoi 'AOqvafov. 6 Strictly interpreted these 
words would include all Athenian cleruchs abroad. Since there 
were no previous inhabitants to whom Scyros could be re- 
turned, 7 if the Athenian settlers were cleruchs and were sent to 

1 As Jones notes, Athenian Democracy, 169, 171 f. 

2 This word is a synonym for omcrr^g, and its use increases in the later 
period. See Lampros, de conditorum coloniarum Graecarum indole praemiisque et 
honoribus, Diss. Leipzig 1873, 2 5? 3 ff* 

3 See Busolt/Swoboda 1272 n. 3. 

4 'That Lemnos, Imbros and Scyros should belong to those who possessed 
them, but now that they should be ours.* 

5 Xen. Hell. ILii.g. 

6 'Any other Athenian whom he found anywhere/ Xen. HelL II.ii.2. 

7 The Dolopian inhabitants were sold into slavery, see Thuc. 1. 98. 2. It is 
suggested in Busolt/Swoboda, 1272 n. 3, that enough of the previous popula- 
tion remained to occupy the island after 404. But this involves rejecting 



l86 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

Athens, there would have been no one on the island to possess it. 
This is the dilemma: if the settlers on Scyros were not cleruchs, 
and so were left in possession in 404, how did they become a 
cleruchy in the fourth century? If they were cleruchs, who were 
Andocides 3 possessors after 404? 

Lemnos' position at the same time is more complicated, but 
perhaps less difficult. If it is assumed that the Athenian settlers 
descended from the original settlers were not Athenian citizens 
and were therefore left in possession of the island, the cleruchs 
could have been sent home as Athenians without leaving the 
island deserted. Two inscriptions have been thought to confirm 
that this is what happened. An epitaph for a certain Nico- 
machus reads: 

Atfftvo OJL rjyadsag nsvQsi rd<po<; evOdds yaiaq 
avdga (pdottQoparov Nix6/j,a%oc; d* ovo/to.. 1 

The letter forms make it reasonable to attribute the inscription 
to the period in question, and it has been taken to refer to a 
cleruch who had to leave his land (or flocks) on Lemnos. 2 This 
is possible, but not certain, for the inscription cannot be dated 
sufficiently precisely and he could have died on a visit. 

The second inscription is a decree of Myrina, 3 in which the 
demos of Myrina is mentioned but not that of Athens, as in later 
cleruchy decrees. 4 Partly because of this and partly from the 
script it has been dated to the period after 404^ If the dating is 
accepted, the inscription could perhaps be held to show that 
Myrina was independent of Athens. But the argument is dan- 
gerously circular, and furthermore, if the original settlers of 
Myrina were not cleruchs, they could presumably have pro- 
duced such a decree, whether or not there was also a cleruchy 
on the island. 

Thucydides* statement, and it is an attempt to avoid the difficulty, like that 
described above (p. 177) regarding the tribute of Lemnos. Their remark 
that Plutarch's account does not suit the supposition that all the previous 
population were removed seems hard to understand in face of Plutarch's 
words (Cimon. VIII.5) rov$ n&> Aokonaq staffs. 

1 'The tomb here covers a man from the sacred land of Lemnos who loved 
his flocks; his name was Nicomachus,' IG II/IIP 7180; Peek, Griech. Versin- 
schriften 490. 

2 Cf. editor, IG ad loc. 3 JQ XII.8.2. 

4 See above p. 167. 5 See IG xn.8, notes to no. 2. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 187 

Another inscription, unfortunately very fragmentary, seems 
to show at least that cleruchs were either sent to the island or 
already there in 387/6. 1 This refers expressly to cleruchs on 
Lemnos and makes arrangements about goods and land on the 
island. Disputes about land are provided for, 2 and a prohibition 
against letting may be confidently referred to land. 3 It is tempt- 
ing to interpret the decree as arranging for the resettlement of a 
cleruchy on Lemnos after the island's recovery by Athens. 4 
Given the state of the inscription, however, such an inter- 
pretation can be no more than a conjecture. 

These inscriptions provide at the most very dubious confir- 
mation for the view that the cleruchs left the island in 404, but 
that the descendants of the original colonists remained; and 
even so difficulties remain. The evidence about Lemnos in the 
fourth century and after seems to show that the island was com- 
pletely a cleruchy by that time. 5 If that is so, how did the pre- 
vious non-cleruchs become Athenian citizens? It is also at least 
doubtful that Lysander would have differentiated the cleruchs 
from the non-cleruchs among the Athenian settlers, if he was 
sending all possible Athenians back to Athens. 

There is one explanation which would remove many of the 
difficulties both at Lemnos and Scyros. If Lysander sent home 
all the Athenian settlers whatever their status, when the 
Athenians recovered the islands, they could have resettled them 
entirely with cleruchs, and the difference between fourth- 
century and fifth-century status would be explained. For this 
explanation to be correct it is necessary to ignore the doubtful 
inferences from the inscriptions just discussed, though that is not 
difficult. It is also necessary either to assume that Andocides' 
words g%eiv rovQ s%ovra<; are merely a loose way of say- 
ing that the islands ceased to be Athenian, and do not imply 
definite possessors, or that some unknown squatters took over 
the vacated islands. While neither of these assumptions is im- 
possible, it must remain uncertain whether the Spartans would 
have expelled Athenian colonists from these three islands. 
There was no Greek population with a right to them, and at an 

1 See IG IP.30, with notes. 2 See fragment 0.23. 

3 See fragment .4. 

4 Thus the confiscated houses of line 14 were perhaps the houses previ- 
ously owned by cleruchs. 

5 See above p. 174. 



l88 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

earlier date the Spartans had not been averse to a peace treaty 
leaving Athens in possession of them. 1 

In the present state of our knowledge it must be confessed that 
there is no entirely satisfactory way of reconstructing the situ- 
ation of these islands in detail at the time in question. It is per- 
haps advisable, therefore, for the present purposes to concen- 
trate attention on the broader issues. Just as Thucydides thought 
of Lemnos and Imbros as Athenian settlements abroad very 
closely connected to Athens, so the fourth-century evidence 
shows that in Greek eyes generally they were in a special posi- 
tion as possessions of Athens. The reason why this was so, in 
contrast to many other areas which the Athenians had claimed 
in the fifth century, is not to be sought in any special legal 
position. Hampl regarded the islands as examples of his 
Toleis ohne Territorium', 2 which supported his principle that 
the metropolis did not relinquish its legal possession of the land 
of its colony. But Athens claimed many other territories in the 
fifth century, on which she had not founded colonies, 3 and the 
reason why her claim to these was not generally recognized was 
that there was still a Greek population to oppose it. 4 There was 
no opponent with a good claim to the islands of Lemnos, 
Imbros and Scyros. 

Her claim to the colonies is thus hardly to be based on 
HampPs principle about colonies, but it is true that her first 
colonists on Lemnos were apparently not cleruchs yet Athens in 
effect possessed the island. She could, for example, establish a 
cleruchy on it. However, Athens' general behaviour as an 
imperial state and examples from other Greek colonies provide 
sufficient explanation for the position of Lemnos. It has been 
seen that some other mother cities treated colonies effectively as 
possessions, even though the colonies were not part of the 
founding state, 5 and in founding a cleruchy on the land of her 
colony, Athens was perhaps only exercising on a large scale, and 
in an unusual way, the mother city's right, which we have 
noticed elsewhere, 6 of sending in further settlers to a colony. 

1 See Aeschines, 11.76. 2 Klio xxxii 1939, 29-32. 

3 Even if she had founded cleruchies, but these are not separate cities in 
HampPs legal sense. 

4 Cf. Andocides* distinctions between the three islands and other past 
possessions of Athens, Hl.g, 14.?. 

5 See especially Chapters V and VII. 6 See Chapter IV. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES l8g 

When one remembers Athens' great power, and her high-handed 
treatment of cities unrelated to her, the control she exercised 
over her colonists on Lemnos is not surprising. The real weak- 
ness of Hampl's thesis, here as elsewhere, is his rigid concept of 
the polis 1m Rechtssinne'. A colony like Lemnos was in prac- 
tice, owing to its mother city's power, very far from being a 
fully independent city, whatever the legal forms. 1 

From the point of view of our understanding of cleruchies, 
and their place in Greek colonization generally, perhaps the 
most significant conclusion from this long study of the doubtful 
cases is that, although a distinction of language was available, 
Greek authors of the classical period could describe cleruchies in 
the same terms as other colonies. In retaining the citizenship of 
the metropolis the cleruch appears strikingly different from 
normal Greek colonists, and yet this difference was not so im- 
portant in the eyes of an observer like Thucydides that he felt 
the need to exclude the cleruchy from his concept of a colony. 
There could be no clearer warning to modern investigators that 
it is unhistorical to postulate rigid theoretical distinctions in 
Greek colonies. 2 Thucydides' concept of the colony was suffi- 
ciently wide to embrace both completely independent settle- 
ments and extensions of the founding state. 

In view of this it is necessary to consider the cleruch's position 
and compare it with that of other Greek colonists. From this 
discussion we may exclude any cleruchs who stayed in Athens 
and did not reside on their lots, if such existed, since they were 
in practice not colonists. It is the cleruchies which formed a 
new community which concern us. 

As an Athenian citizen the cleruch may be assumed to have 
been liable to the duties of Athenian citizen, in so far as his 
place of residence allowed. Thus the mutilated inscriptions 
about Hestiaea seem to imply that the cleruchs were liable to 
eisphora as we have seen, 3 and although absolutely indisputable 
evidence is lacking, 4 there should be no doubt that cleruchs 

1 Will is rightly critical of Hampl's thesis about Lemnos; see La Nouvelle 
Cliovi 1954, 457 f. 

2 This is a serious weakness in Will's paper, op. cit.; see especially 459. 
For all that he is right to compare the cleruchy with other colonies showing 
similar features to a lesser extent. 3 See above pp. 171 f. 

4 There is definite evidence if, as I believe, Hestiaea and Aegina were 
cleruchies (see Thuc. VII.57.2), or if the Lemnians and Imbrians whom 



IQO COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

were liable to general military service. Although they may have 
served as garrisons in some difficult areas, 1 Jones is right to cast 
a doubt on the theory that all cleruchies had this function. 2 It is 
true that the one quite certain instance of military service by 
cleruchs was in the vicinity of the cleruchy, 3 but presumably 
Athens made use of them when and where they were needed. 
Apart from financial obligations 4 and military service, however, 
we are not informed about the cleruch's obligation as a citizen 
living abroad, though we may note that, like other colonists, 
they made offerings to the gods of the mother city. 5 

Among other colonies we have seen instances which seem 
comparable with Athenian cleruchs, as Cythera for example, 
and perhaps the colonies of Sybaris and Syracuse. 6 These may 
have been extensions of the founding state, which could be re- 
garded as colonies because of the practical effect of distance. 
Some colonies of Corinth were very often associated with 
Corinth in war, though the evidence falls short of showing that 
Corinth could command their military support. 7 A true 
parallel among Greek colonies for the cleruch's financial obli- 
gations to the mother city is not found. The colonies of Sinope 
were bound to pay sums to the metropolis, but their payment is 
called tribute (dda/tov) . 8 The only other clear evidence on the 
subject is from the foundation decree about Naupactus, where 
the colonists were expressly freed from taxes owed as citizens of 
the mother community. 9 

Although instances comparable to the Athenian cleruchies 
can be found among other Greek colonies, as large settlements 

Thucydides mentions (111.5.1; IV.28.4; V.8.2; VII.57.2) as serving with 
the Athenians, were the cleruchs. Similarly the lists of the fallen which 
include Lemnians show that cleruchs served with the Athenians, if the 
Lemnians there named were the cleruchs (see above, pp. i79f). 

1 As in the Thracian Chersonese; see Plut. Per. XIX.I. 

2 Athenian Democracy 1 74 > 

3 When the Athenians ordered the cleruchs at Chalcis to help Eretria in 
490, see Hdt. VLioo.i. 

4 Among these the cleruch was either wholly or partly exempt from the 
trierarchy in the fourth century; see Busolt/Swoboda 1276 and n. 5. 

5 See IG I 2 . 274, 178 (xA.rJQov%oi, dve6ea[av), which may be compared with 
the offerings of enowoi at Potidaea (Tod 60) and an ajtowia of uncertain 
locality (IG P.396, see ATL III 283 ff). Gf. also the religious obligation of 
the colonists to Brea, and of the Athenian allies; see above, Chapter IV. 

6 See Chapter V. f See chapter VII. 
8 Xen. Anab. V.v.io. 9 See Chapter IV. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 1QI 

of citizens abroad they are different in degree from most Greek 
colonies. In discussing the question of mutual citizenship we 
saw that though colonies and mother cities found it easy to open 
their citizenship to each other., the normal rule was certainly for 
the colonists to lose their old citizenship. 1 It was for this reason 
that most Greek colonies did not form a means of political 
expansion for the mother city. In the cleruchy the Athenians 
had produced a colony to fulfil this purpose. It is therefore in- 
teresting that they did not invariably use it, and it is worth 
while to seek the reasons why one settlement was a cleruchy and 
another not. 

It is easy to understand that a colony which became a new 
Greek state was out of the question when the settlement was on 
the land of an existing Greek city, as, for example, at Mytilene, 
and there is, in fact, no example of anything but a cleruchy 
being founded in these circumstances. When, on the other 
hand, the population of a captured Greek city had been en- 
tirely expelled, the Athenians apparently sometimes established 
a cleruchy, but not always. For though it seems most probable, 
if not certain, that Hestiaea, Aegina and Melos were cleruchies, 
Potidaea was not. 2 It is this instance which invalidates an old 
suggestion that cleruchies were established in Greek cities and 
apoikiai were planted on the territory of barbarians. 3 

The only obvious difference between the settlements at 
Aegina and Potidaea of almost exactly the same date is that 
Potidaea was much further from Athens. It is noticeable too 
that the earliest cleruchy definitely attested, that at Chalcis, was 
very close to Attica. It seems possible, therefore, that the cleru- 
chy, as an extension of the founding state, was at first only felt 
to be possible on land close to Athens. The best analogies for the 
Athenian cleruchies in Greek colonization in general have been 
seen to be colonies at a short distance from their mother cities, 
It therefore appears that the unusual character of the cleruchy 
is to be explained by the practical effect of Athens' naval power 
and political ambition, which enabled her to overcome the 
difficulties which prevented most Greek mother cities from ex- 
panding their state by means of colonies. The dependent 
colonies of Corinth were probably the result of a similar ability 

1 See Chapter VI. 2 See above pp. 170 ff., 177 n. 3. 

3 See De Bougainville, op. cit., p. 21. 



IQ2 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

in the mother city to conquer the effects of distance, as has been 
seen, but in the clemchy Athens had succeeded to an even 
greater degree. 

Other imperial colonies 

We may now turn to the Athenian colonies which were cer- 
tainly not cleruchies. The foundations of several of these, which 
were discussed in Chapter III, show that they were established 
with imperial aspirations. It is necessary here to investigate how 
far their subsequent relations to Athens bore out the intentions 
of the founders. The Spartan colony at Heraclea in Trachis, 
Sinope's extensive control over her South Pontic colonies, and, 
to a far smaller extent, the Adriatic colonies of Dionysius I, 
represent valuable comparative material, which justifies their 
place in this chapter, but Athens inevitably demands most 
attention. 

The position of Sigeum regarding Athens has been confused 
in modern literature, because Berve's extreme view that it was 
an independent possession of the tyrant house 1 provoked replies 
that went too far in their attempt to prove its connection with 
the state of Athens. 2 In general terms Sigeum's relationship 
with Athens was not exceptionally close except under the 
tyranny. When Hippias withdrew there 3 he came under the 
protection of the Persians, 4 and Sigeum's relations with Athens 
were presumably largely cut off until after the Persian Wars. 
As a regular ally in the Delian League and a vital position on 
the Hellespont Sigeum was then no doubt effectively under 
Athenian control, but the evidence does not suggest greater 
dependence than that of other subordinate allies. 

It was argued above 5 that the establishment of Hegesistratus 
as ruler of Sigeum should be regarded as part of an Athenian 
policy to control the Hellespont, and this involves the assump- 
tion that Sigeum became a dependent colony. On the other 
hand, the evidence does not show that the colonists had any 
special legal status, as for example Athenian citizenship. The 
famous monument of Phanodicus 6 on which there is an Attic 

1 Miltiades, Hermes Einzelschriften 2, 1937? 26 ff. 

2 See especially Ehrenberg, Aspects of the Ancient World,, 1 16-43; Bengtson, 
Sitz. JSayr. Akad. 1939, 7-67. 

3 Hdt. V.94.I. 4 Cf. V.gS.a. 

5 See Chapter III. 6 Hicks and Hill 7; Syll* 2. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES IQ3 

and Ionic inscription, whatever its exact explanation/ can 
hardly be made to show the legal status of the colonists. The 
Attic dialect is used to address Sigeans, and this shows that the 
Athenian settlers had become in effect Sigeans. While it may be 
wrong to conclude from this that the settlers had lost their 
Athenian citizenship, 2 it is worse to use the fact that a non- 
Athenian employed the Attic dialect as evidence for Sigeum's 
political position. 3 Attic is simply used to address speakers of 
Attic. Political conclusions from the presence of a temple of 
Athena 4 are similarly out of place. 

In a highly poetic passage Aeschylus gives mythical justifica- 
tion for Athenian possessions in the Troad (Eum. 397 if), and 
Herodotus' account of the Athenian defence of their coloniza- 
tion of Sigeum (.94,2) is a prose version of the same idea, but 
such evidence does not reveal the precise legal status of the 
settlers or their land. On the other hand Hippias' withdrawal to 
Sigeum 5 and a fifth-century Athenian decree praising the 
Sigeans 6 would both be hard to understand if the colonists had 
remained Athenian citizens. Furthermore, if the argument 
above about Lemnos is correct, 7 the fact that Sigeum was a 
tribute-paying member of the Athenian Empire 8 precludes the 
possibility that it was a cleruchy. 9 

The early Athenian settlement on the Thracian Chersonese 
was also a subject of dispute between Berve and his critics, and 

1 In spite of Van Gompernolle's defence (Antiquite Classiqw xxii 1953, 
61 n. 8) Brouwer's theory (REG xli 1928, 107 ff) that the inscription is not 
a grave relief but a votive monument, recording the offerings not of one man 
but two, the first of whom was the grandfather, the second the grandson, 
must be abandoned. See the criticisms, from different points of view, by 
Guarducci, Ann. d. scuoL arch. d. Atene iii-v 194.1-3, *35-4 > and Johansen, 
Attic Grave Reliefs of the Classical Period, 105. But even if we revert to the older 
opinion that both texts refer to one man, the document is still difficult to 
explain satisfactorily, though many suggestions have been made; see, e.g., 
Hicks and Hill notes to no. 7, Syll. 3 notes to no. 2, and Guarducci 136 f. 

2 As Berve, Miltiades, 30. 

8 As Bengton, Sitz. Bqyr. Akad. 1939, 21, who follows Brouwers. 
4 As Bengtson, loc. cit. 5 Hdt. V-94.I. 

6 IG P.32, republished by Meritt, Hesperia v 1936, 361 f. 

7 Seep. 177. 

8 See ATL I Register, s.v. Siyeiijs; HI 206 n. 55. 

9 It should be remarked that Sigeum is generally recognized to have been 
no cleruchy; cf., for example, Ehrenberg, Aspects of the Ancient World^ng, 
even though he thinks that 'municipal cleruchies' could pay tribute 

('350- 



I 9 4 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

we have seen reason to prefer Berve's opinion that Miltiades the 
Elder's colonization was a private enterprise. 1 If this is right, 
the colonists clearly did not retain their Athenian citizenship. 
The action of the Peisistratids in sending Miltiades the Younger 
to rule the Chersonese not long after Hegesistratus was set over 
Sigeum 2 made it in effect an Athenian possession, and all the 
evidence for its dependent position comes from after this time. 

In detail the political and topographical problems of the 
Chersonese are very complicated. 3 However, the only impor- 
tant question for the present purpose is whether the cities of the 
area were independent of each other in the sixth century or 
formed a single state. Ehrenberg's conclusion that there was no 
single state of the Chersonesites at this period 4 seems well sup- 
ported by the admittedly rather slight evidence, in which case it 
also seems probable that Miltiades the Elder's Athenian settlers 
were not established in one city. His enterprise was certainly 
not the foundation of a regular colony, for he became oikist of 
the Chersonesites, 5 who would include both the colonists and 
the original inhabitants. This special nature of the Chersonese 
must be remembered when it is discussed as an Athenian 
colony. 

Conclusions about the status of the Chersonese, or of the 
Athenian settlers in it, have been drawn by modern scholars 
from Miltiades 5 trial for tyranny in the Chersonese. Herodotus' 
words (VI. 104.2,) show that a definite trial was held and 
Miltiades was acquitted. 6 The acquittal was taken by Berve to 
show that the Athenian settlers of the Chersonese were not citi- 
zens of Athens. This line of argument was rejected by Ehren- 
berg (121) on the grounds that there must have been many 
possibilities of refuting such a charge. In this he is right, but it 
was common knowledge that Miltiades had been tyrant of the 
Chersonese, 7 so that some line of defence other than denial that 
he had been a tyrant must presumably have been found. Both 
writers however accept as definite that Miltiades must have 
been accused of tyranny over Athenian citizens, and Bengtson 
is of the same opinion, 8 though he avoids legal definitions and 

1 See Chapter III. * s ee Chapter III. 

3 They are well treated by Ehrenberg, Aspects of the Ancient World^ 12 1 ff. 

4 Ibid. 5 Cf. Hdt. VLsS.i. 

6 As A. von Blumenthal showed, Hermes Ixxii 1937^ 476 f. 

7 Cf. Hdt. IV.I37.I. s sitz. Bayr. Akad. 1939, 19. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 195 

merely affirms that the settlers must have been considered 
Athenians. 

But it seems a mistake to take this trial as good evidence for 
the status of the Athenian settlers on the Chersonese. The main 
issue at stake was whether Miltiades should be admitted to 
Athens. His absence from Athens for at least twenty years may 
have meant that his opponents could find no other charge 
sufficiently serious for their purpose, and in the atmosphere of 
the post-Peisistratid democracy a charge of tyranny might be 
expected to be effective whatever the legal position. 1 Miltiades 
had been set up as a tyrant by tyrants, and the legal status of his 
subjects, some, if not most, of whom were not even of Athenian 
origin, was probably of small importance. To say, therefore, 
that there were Athenian citizens in the Chersonese 2 is only 
possible if one ignores the Athenian atmosphere of the time and 
the odium against tyrants as such. 

Miltiades' return to Athens and tenure of the office of 
strategos has been used to show that the Athenian colonists of the 
Chersonese could return to full citizenship at Athens, 3 or, more 
generally, that all colonists of the later period had a similar 
right. 4 It seems very dangerous to draw general conclusions 
from the career of an outstanding nobleman like Miltiades, 
who may have been free from normal legal limitations. In any 
case he was not in the same position as the other Athenian 
colonists of the Chersonese. They were the descendants of 
settlers of the middle of the sixth century; he was specially sent 
out to rule between 524 and 5i3. 5 No one would suggest that 
Peisistratus had to justify his Athenian citizenship when he 
returned from ruling Rhaecelus, and it seems most probable 
that Miltiades was regarded as an Athenian citizen throughout, 
as is suggested by Herodotus' words describing his return: 
dmxoftevov eg rr\v ecovrov 6 (VI. 1 04.2). 

A bronze helmet dedicated by Miltiades at Olympia has, 
however, been taken to show the opposite. The inscription on 
this runs Mdnddes ave\Kev r~\5i Ai? and the absence of the 

1 Gf. the ostracisms of the 'friends of the tyrants 5 ; Arist. Ath. PoL 22.6. 

2 As Walter CAH IV. 171, and Ehrenberg, 121. 

3 As by Bengtson op. cit. 17 f. 

4 See Will, La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 453. 5 See Chapter III. 

6 'When he arrived in his own country*. 

7 * Miltiades dedicated to Zeus.' 



196 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

ethnic has been interpreted as perhaps showing that Miltiades 
was then tyrant of the Chersonese, 1 and so, it is implied, not 
entitled to be called Athenian. The notorious dedication of 
Pausanias at Delphi, 2 however, is sufficient to show that in such 
inscriptions great individuals did not need to state their city. 
Miltiades should therefore be regarded as a special case, and 
general conclusions about either the Athenian settlers on the 
Chersonese or Greek colonists in general are not to be drawn 
from his career. 

The Athenian occupation of Lemnos was justified by a 
mythical story that the Pelasgians had promised to hand over 
their land to the Athenians when c a ship sailing with the north 
wind comes from> your land to ours in a day 5 . 3 When the 
Athenians controlled the Chersonese they demanded that the 
inhabitants of Lemnos should fulfil their old promise. 4 This has 
been taken to show that the Chersonese became Athenian ter- 
ritory. However such a formal explanation seems inappro- 
priate. It is worth noting that the people of Myrina would not 
acknowledge slvai TTJV XsQaovrjaov 'Arr^v^ which suggests that 
the legal position was not clear. The Athenians presumably 
argued that the Chersonese was Athenian territory to obtain 
mythical, or traditional, justification for their occupation of 
Lemnos of a similar kind to that advanced about Sigeum. 

Evidence about the Chersonese in later times seems also to 
suggest that the Athenian claim to it did not rest on any formal 
basis. Since Cimon had to re-acquire the Chersonese after 
the Persian Wars, 6 it may be assumed that it ceased to be under 
Athenian control with the departure of Miltiades. The later 
despatch of a cleruchy to the Chersonese 7 is therefore a result of 
the practical Athenian control established by Cimon, rather 
than any formal claims, and this is borne out by the informa- 
tion that the Cardians refused to receive Athenian cleruchs in 
the fourth century on the grounds that their land was their own 
and not Athenian. 8 

It seems right to conclude that the sixth-century Athenian 

1 See Kunze, Gnomon xxvi 1954, 142. 2 Thuc. 1.132 2 

3 Hdt. VI.I394. * Hdtj vLuo.i! 

5 'That the Chersonese is Attica'; Hdt. VI. 140.2. 

6 Plut. Cimon. XIV. i . 7 See above p . j ? s. 
8 See Arg. Dem. VIII. 1-2. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES IQJ 

colonization of the Chersonese did not create a cleruchy there 1 
nor a formal claim that the Chersonese was Athenian land. Its 
dependence on Athens was a result of a Peisistratid policy of 
controlling the Hellespontine region, which was expressed in 
the rule of the Athenian Miltiades. 2 Both Sigeum and the 
Chersonese are therefore to be seen as examples of Athenian 
expansion in the later sixth century, but the dependence of the 
colonies was not expressed in special legal forms. 3 Athenian con- 
trol over them was maintained by Athenian power, first under 
the tyrants and later under the imperial demos. 

The foundations of the fifth-century Athenian settlements at 
Brea, Thurii and Amphipolis have already been discussed. 4 
Brea has no history, so its subsequent relations with Athens are 
not known, but a clause in its foundation decree was used by 
Hampl to show that its land remained legally Athenian terri- 
tority. 5 The clause in question provided that the cities should 
come to the help of Brea if its land was attacked, according to 
the agreement made about the cities of the Thraceward 
Region. 6 Hampl argues that the cities could not be bound by 
treaty to defend anything but Athenian state land, and adduces 
the silence of three alliance inscriptions to support his view. The 
oaths of the Chalcidians, Samians and the Bottiaean cities 7 
should have mentioned not only the Athenians but also their 
colonies, if the allies were bound to help them. This argument is 
weak. The oaths mentioned are couched in general terms, the 
normal formula being that the cities will be faithful allies and 
help the Athenian demos. This does not suggest that there was 

1 Gf. Ehrenberg, Aspects of the Ancient World, 128. 
2 Cf. Ehrenberg, 127. 

3 An argument about the status of the colonists of Sigeum and the 
Chersonese was advanced by Will from the inscription /(? P. 9 28, of which he 
writes e les morts sont classes sous leurs ethniques : Sigeens 3 Cardiens, Mady- 
tiens etc.' see La Nouvelle Clio vi 1954, 446. So he concludes that whatever the 
legal position of the companions of Miltiades the Elder and Hegesistratus, 
their descendants were simply Sigeans and Gardians. But this is based on 
error. In the inscription the only ethnics are Mad^vrioi (34) and Bvd]vrio[i 
(98); the other names are place-names (Sigeum, Gardia, Thasos etc.) and 
show where the men fell. Only the Madytians can be used for Will's purpose 
and there may well have been no settlers of Athenian origin among them. 
This evidence is therefore irrelevant to the question of the colonists' status. 

4 See Chapter III. 

5 T/z'0 xxxii, 1939, 34-6. 

6 Tod 44.13 fF. The clause is discussed above. Chapter III. 

7 Tod 42.22-31; /<? P.SO; Tod 68.16-22. 



ig8 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

any strict distinction between the ways they might help the 
demos, and the Bottiaean undertaking to have the same friends 
and enemies as the Athenians (r[ov<; avrovQ yilovt; nal e%6]Qov<; 
vojLuov/tev &ans$ av 9 A6rpau)i) 1 would surely cover a case such as 
that envisaged in the Brea decree. Moreover since we do not 
know the content of the agreement mentioned, it is impossible 
to draw conclusions from the duty imposed on the cities in 
question. All that is clear from the clause of the Brea decree is 
that the agreement contained the necessary arrangements for 
the case envisaged. No doubt if special formulae were required 
they were used. It is, therefore, impossible to show from the 
clause discussed that Brea was a Tolis ohne Territorium'. 

In the foundation of Thurii the Athenians took steps to 
establish a colony likely to help their interests in the West. 2 
Quite soon, however, in 434/3, civil strife occurred among the 
colonists as to which city was their metropolis and who their 
oikist. 3 The dispute is described by Diodorus as between the 
Athenians and the Peloponnesians (XII.35.2.), though this 
may be an over-simplification, since there were settlers from 
many other parts of Greece. 4 The decision of the god at Delphi 
that he himself was the oikist of Thurii, and the implication that 
this decision was well received, 5 appear to be setbacks to 
Athenian intentions, but it also appears that the group of pro- 
Athenian settlers were trying to preserve the Athenian con- 
nection, and their acceptance of the god's decision may have 
been due not only to his authority in colonial matters 6 but also 
to his happy discovery of a middle road. 

Thurii's behaviour in the Peloponnesian War shows that the 
pro-Athenian party were in the ascendant there until the 
Athenian defeat in Sicily. The Athenians were well received 
there in 4i5, 7 and Gylippus failed to win over the city in 4I4- 8 
Demosthenes and Eurymedon found the pro-Athenian party in 
control and were not only able to hold a review, but even to 
persuade the Thurians to join enthusiastically in the Athenian 

1 Tod 68. 18 f. 2 See chapter III. 

3 Diod. XII.35.i-3. 

4 As appears from the tribes Boiotia, Amphiktyonis, las, Euboeis and 
Nesiotis; see Diod. XII.n.3. 

5 Diod. XII.35.3. e G f. chapter II. 

7 Diod. XIII.34. 

8 Thuc. VI.I04.2. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 

campaign and have the same friends and enemies. 1 Even before 
the success of the pro-Athenian party recorded by Thucydides 
(11.33.6) the Athenians were able to look for Alcibiades 
throughout the whole town. 2 The Athenian policy at the 
foundation of providing in the tribal arrangements for a pro- 
Athenian bloc had thus had some success. However, when the 
Sicilian Expedition failed, Thurii openly joined the Pelopon- 
nesian side 3 and expelled a large number of citizens for pro- 
Athenian sympathies. 4 The history of Thurii's subsequent rela- 
tions with Athens shows that colonists of such mixed origins 
were not reliable friends of Athens, but this is hardly surprising 
in view of the special circumstances of the foundation and the 
contemporary divisions in the general Greek world. 

Special circumstances were not present at Amphipolis; it was 
a new city and definitely an Athenian colony; 5 but the mixed 
origins of the settlers also told against the Athenian connection 
there. Although the Athenians intended that Amphipolis should 
be a strong point of their power in the Thraceward region, the 
size of population necessary for the city's safety 6 presumably pre- 
vented them from founding a colony entirely of their own citi- 
zens. The mixed origin of the settlers, if no other reason, makes it 
certain that Amphipolis was not a cleruchy, and there is no 
evidence to suggest that the settlers from Athens had a special 
status in the colony. 7 In view of its great importance to Athens, 
it is necessary to investigate whether the Athenians took any 
other special measures to control the colony. 

In Amphipolis at the time of Brasidas' arrival there was an 
Athenian general, Eucles, whom Thucydides describes as 
guardian of the region (qrtihagrov XCOQIOV; IV. 1044). Eucles has 

1 Thuc. VII. 33. 6. The numbers given by Thucydides, 700 hoplites and 
300 dxovncFTai are, as Pappritz noted (Thurii, Diss. Berlin 1891, 65), very 
small when compared with Diodorus' figures of Thurian forces against the 
Lucanians (XIV. 101.2). But Pappritz gives other examples of great dif- 
ferences between Diodorus' figures and Thucydides', and so it cannot be 
argued that the Thurian support was niggardly. 

2 Thuc. VI.6i.6 f. 3 See, e.g., Thuc. VIII.84.2. 

4 [Plut], Vita dec. orat. B^E. 

5 The foundation of Amphipolis is discussed in Chapter III. 

6 See Chapter III. 

7 Some passages in Thucydides (IV. 105. 2 and 106.1) might be held to 
suggest that the settlers from Athens had kept their Athenian citizenship. I 
therefore discuss them in detail in Appendix VI, where I try to show that it 
would be wrong to draw such a conclusion. 



200 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

been called 'der athenische Gouverneur', 1 but the implication 
that Athens set a regular governor over Amphipolis is not justi- 
fied by Thucydides' narrative. It is clear from Thucydides 5 des- 
cription (ibid.) of Eucles as the general (tov arQarrjyov) ^ and his 
immediately subsequent description of himself as the other 
general of the Thraceward region, that Eucles was one of the 
two generals responsible for the defence of the Thraceward 
Region, and his headquarters were at Amphipolis. He is not 
therefore quite the same as the (pvAaxes and enianonoi whom the 
Athenians sent to supervise dependent cities 3 2 though even 
these may have not been permanent officials. Eucles is rather to 
be compared with the Corinthian a.Q%oyv sent to Ambracia in 
426, 3 than with the Corinthian snidri^iovQyoi regularly sent to 
Potidaea. 4 It is nevertheless important to note that the head- 
quarters of one of the two Athenian generals in the Thraceward 
Region were at the colony of Amphipolis. The defence and 
effective control of the town was intended to be in Athens' 
hands. 

One of the reasons for Amphipolis 5 value to Athens stated by 
Thucydides (IV. 108.2) was xQr/pdrcov n^oaodog. This phrase, 
to judge by Thucydides' normal usage, 5 should mean revenues 
to the state, rather than the profits of individual Athenians 
through trade with Amphipolis. Thus Gomme talks of the 'im- 
portant revenue' which Amphipolis provided as additional to 
the tribute (^og), 6 It cannot be determined whether the 
revenue came from a direct levy or an indirect tax like the 5 per 
cent toll imposed at the Piraeus 7 and the duties levied by 
Thasos, 8 but perhaps the latter is more probable. For Amphi- 
polis remained famous for its revenues, as is shown by a passage 
of Isocrates (V.s), where he affirms that Philip should value the 
friendship of Athens more than the revenues (jZQoaodovz] from 

1 See Papastavrou, Klio Beiheft 38, 1936, 16. 

2 These are the terms of theSuda (s.v. enianono<;} where they are equated 
with the Spartan harmosts; the remark goes back to Theophrastus, see 
Harpocration s.v. 'Emcexonog. But Highby argues convincingly that the 
Athenian smexonoi were, in contrast to the harmosts, not permanent and 
regular officials. See The Eryihrae Decree, Klio Beiheft 36, 1936, 18-20. 

3 See above p. 137 n. i. * g ee a b ov e pp. 136 f. 

5 See the examples of his uses of the word nQotfodoe listed by Ectant, Lexicon 
Thucydideum s.v. e Historia ii 1953, 2 f. 

7 See [Xen.] Ath. Pol 1. 17, and Frisch, The Constitution of the Athenians, 
227- 8 See Chapter V, 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 201 

Amphipolis. Such a reputation is perhaps most easily explained 
by the fact that Amphipolis was a great entrepreneur city, where 
tolls could be profitably and easily levied. But whatever the 
exact nature of the revenue, Athens may be said to have im- 
posed financial obligations on her colony. 

We do not know why Amphipolis and other colonies of 
Athens founded after the Persian Wars did not pay tribute, 
though we can conjecture that a payment made by formal allies 
was considered inappropriate for Athens' own colonies. Even 
so, payments by Amphipolis might be justified, if justification 
were felt necessary, by the fact that Amphipolis, like the allies, 
enjoyed Athenian protection. If, on the other hand, Hampl is 
right and Amphipolis was a city on Athenian territory, a pay- 
ment to Athens could be regarded as a kind of rent. For when 
the ambassadors from Sinope justified their interest in the 
treatment of Gotyora, they said 

KorvoQlrai ds ovrol elal }JLSV rj/ASTegoi CWOMOI, KOI tr\v %a)Qav tf[tei<; 
avrolg ravrrjv naQadedcbxajuev (taQfiaQOVQ dyeAojuevor did %al daa/idv 
Tijjilv (peQovaw ofiroir&tay^evov KOI KsQaaovvrcoi xal Tqane^ovvnoi^ 

It was on the basis of this statement and his conclusions about 
Amphipolis that Hampl formulated his principle that mother 
cities remained legally in possession of the territory of their 
colonies, and his argument regarding Sinope and her colonies 
needs to be examined before the discussion of Amphipolis can 
be satisfactorily concluded. 

Hampl interprets the passage just quoted as showing that the 
Sinopeans did not give up their right to the territory, but 
merely allowed their colonists to inhabit it as tenants, on con- 
sideration of their fixed payments of tribute. 2 He finds support 
in the reason given by Xenophon for the coming of the am- 
bassadors from Sinope (V.v.y): 

yofiotifisvoi nsql ta>v KOTVOQIT&V rfji; rs nolisax; (fjv yaq euelvayv xal 
yoqov mdvoic, scpeQOv] KOI nsgi rfjt; %d)Qa^ ore r^mvov dflovfi&rjv.* 

1 Xen. Anab. V.v.io: 'These Cotyorites are our colonists and we gave over 
this territory to them, after we had taken it from barbarians. For this reason 
they pay a fixed tribute, as also the people of Gerasus and Trapezus.* 

2 His discussion of Sinope and her colonies is in Klio xxxii 1939, 5 ff. 

3 'They were afraid both for the city of the Cotyorites (for it was theirs 
and paid tribute to them) and for their land, because they heard it was 
being laid waste. 5 



202 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

To make his argument complete Hampl asserts that the colo- 
nists were not citizens of Sinope abroad, and although his 
individual arguments are not very strong, he is almost certainly 
right in this conclusion. The distance of the colonies from 
Sinope, if nothing else, makes it improbable that they were part 
of the state of Sinope. So, if the territory of the colonies was 
legally Sinope's, then they were, as Hampl calls them, Toleis 
ohne Territorum'. 

In the first passage quoted above, Anab. V.v. 10, the Sinopean 
ambassadors say that they gave over the land to their colonists 
and the colonists in return pay tribute. This is not, as it stands, 
evidence that Sinope maintained a legal claim to the land of her 
colonies. Nor are the words fy yag SKSWODV of the second passage, 
for it can be shown by detailed study of similar Thucydidean 
passages 1 that such expressions imply political control in 
general, but have no precise or regular legal significance. That 
Xenophon's words here lack such precise significance may be 
shown by comparing Xenophon's reply to the ambassadors 
with what the ambassadors are actually reported as saying. For 
Xenophon says (V.v. 19) KOTVOQITO.*; ds, ovQv^&reqovt; (pars elvai. z 
Whereas the ambassadors in fact said (V.v.io) simply that the 
Cotyorites were colonists from Sinope (fi^&rsQoi OJIOLXQI}. 

But while these passages from Xenophon do not seem to 
justify the separation of inhabitants and territory postulated by 
Hampl for the colonies of Sinope, the payment of tribute and 
the reason given for it are both interesting in themselves and for 
the sake of comparison. The justification for the payment of 
tribute by the colony that the mother city had won the land 
from the barbarians and given it to the colonists is strikingly 
similar to one of the Theban arguments for their right to con- 
trol Plataea. 3 They do not mention tribute, but the general 
hegemony that they claim may be compared with Sinope's 
position regarding her colonies, for the tribute was only one 
aspect of her control. We also learn from Xenophon's account 
that the ambassadors from Sinope could give orders to the 
people of Gotyora (V,v.24.), an d ^ at there was a harmost 



1 See my article in Historia xi 1962, 246 ff. 

2 The Cotyorites whom you state to be yours.* 

3 Thuc. III.6i.2. The relations of Thebes and Plataea are discussed above, 
pp. 126 f. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 203 

from Sinope at Cotyora (V.v.ig). The justification for their 
tribute may therefore be compared with the Theban justifica- 
tion for a general hegemony. Perhaps it was an accepted argu- 
ment for the right of mother cities to control their colonies. 

In order to show that Amphipolis was a Tolis ohne Terri- 
torium 5 , Hampl argued first that it was a separate city in a 
legal sense, and secondly that Athens remained the legal pos- 
sessor of its land, 1 As we have seen, 2 there is no need to doubt 
that Amphipolis was a normal Greek colony in the sense that it 
formed a new city-state. The evidence for the second of 
HampFs arguments begins with the clause relating to Amphi- 
polis in the Peace of Nicias: dnodovrcov ds s A6r]vaioigAa^edaL/Li6noL 
KO! gv/tjLiaxoi *AjLi(pinofav. z This Hampl compares with the clause 
relating to Panactum, which is couched in exactly the same 
terms and which undoubtedly refers, he maintains, to Athenian 
territory. In fact Panactum was probably disputed territory be- 
tween Thebes and Athens. 4 But it is more important, as we have 
also seen, that phrases like those about Amphipolis and Panac- 
tum could be applied to areas which were not legally part of the 
territory of those to whom they were to be returned. 5 The 
phrases imply political control in general, as is shown by a 
comparison with another phrase in the Peace of Nicias: c con- 
cerning Scione and Torone and Sermyle and any other city 
which the Athenians possess (e%ovaiv)\* If the word e%ovaiv 
could be used for the relationship of Athens to her subject 
allies, dnoddvrcDV, referring to Amphipolis, cannot be pressed into 
yielding the conclusion that Athens claimed legal possession of 
the territory of Amphipolis. The same view should be taken of 
three fourth-century passages adduced by Hampl to show that 
Amphipolis' territory was legally Athenian. Aeschines remarks 
(Il.gs), with reference to the peace treaty of 375/4, that 
Amyntas voted to join with the other Greeks in helping to 
recover for the Athenians Amphipolis, which was theirs 
iv rrjv * Adyvalcw] . Demosthenes says (XIX.253) that 



1 Op. cit. 2-5. His conclusion is accepted by Westlake, Hermes xc 1962, 
280. 

2 P. 199; cf. Appendix VL 

3 The Spartans and their allies shall give back Amphipolis to the 
Athenians.' Thuc. V.i8.5. 

4 See my discussion Historia xi 1962, 247. 

5 See Chapter VII. 6 Thuc. V. 18.8. 



204 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

the great king and all the Greeks recognized that Amphipolis 
belonged to the Athenians. Both these statements and the passage 
[Dem,] VILsg, where the words are similar, are to be under- 
stood as referring to Athens' claim that Amphipolis should be 
in general subject to her. None suggests that the people and 
territory should be legally distinguished from each other in the 
way that Hampl proposes. 

On the other hand the whole passage Aeschines 11.29-33 is 
more complicated. Here Aeschines tell of his representations as 
ambassador to Philip on the question of Amphipolis; he ex- 
plains (31) how he went over the possession of the land from the 
beginning, recounting how Acamas, the son of Theseus, had 
received it as the dowry of his wife; and he says that at the time 
it had been in place to tell the story as accurately as possible, 
but that now he will be more concise. So he relates how he 
turned to the clause in the peace of 375/4 noted above, and 
claimed that Philip should not work against the actions of his 
father Amyntas, ending with the words: 

si 6* avtmovfl nata nofejuov Aaficbv SMOTCOQ s%siv, si 



si <3 9 "" " A^moUta^ dys&ov t^v 'AOrjvalcov 
ov raKsivvov s^eig d/Ua rfjv *A6rjvalcov 



This quite clearly makes a distinction between land and people, 
city and inhabitants. 

When Aeschines justified Athens 5 claims to Amphipolis in 
this way the city had not only been free from Athens in practice 
since 424, but its Athenian settlers had presumably left, and 
Athens had been repudiated as the mother city. 2 It may well be 
that these events appeared to Athenians to be the theft of their 
city, so that they regarded the inhabitants remaining as ille- 
gally occupying their possession. This may or may not be the 
explanation for Aeschines' expression, 3 but it is necessary to 

1 'But if you claim that you took the city in war and thus rightfully possess 
it, if it was against us that you fought and took the city by force, you hold it 
justly according to the law of war. But if you took from the Amphipolitans 
the Athenians' city, you hold not their property but the Athenians' land.' 

2 This was the effect of their action in transferring the oikist's honours and 
destroying all memory of Hagnon's foundation; Thuc. V.H.I. 

3 Aeschines' arguments are part of a well-developed campaign of pro- 
paganda and counter-propaganda. The highly artificial justification from 
the mythical past on which Philip's claims to Amphipolis were also based 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 205 

remember that Athenian claims to the city after its break from 
Athens may well have been different from her attitude when it 
was still an Athenian colony. This suggestion seems to be con- 
firmed by the theoretical conclusions which follow if one accepts 
Hampl's contention that the colony's land was Athens' land 
from the beginning. 

If Amphipolis' land was Athenian state land like Attica, the 
foreign settlers must have been given the right of possession, 
&yxrr]ai, in order to possess it. This right was not freely given at 
Athens; by no means all metics possessed it, and it remained an 
important privilege. 1 It is also relevant that the first preserved 
instance of the grant of eyxrrjau; at Athens is not till 424/3. 2 Is it 
to be assumed that this privilege was given to a large number of 
foreign settlers at Amphipolis? 

If, on the other hand, this somewhat absurd conclusion is 
avoided by saying that the settlers did not have the right of 
possession of their allotments but paid a rent for them to Athens, 
in the way that Hampl interprets the tribute of Sinope's 
colonies, we must accept that the settlers of Athenian origin 
were willing to pay rent to the state for occupying allotments of 
Athenian state land. Since the citizens of a Greek city did not 
pay rent to the state for their land for this would be paying 
rent to themselves 3 this possibility too may be confidently 
dismissed. These formal arguments are necessary to disprove 

may be seen in Speusippus' letter to Philip, 5 f; see Bickermann and Sykutris, 
'Speusipps Brief an Konig Philipp', Ber. sacks. Akad.Wiss., Phil. Hist. Klasse, 
Ixxix 1927, 9 and 26 f. 

1 See M. Clerc, Les Meteques Atheniennes (Paris 1893) 195 f. 

2 The word occurs or is plausibly restored in IG I 2 .yo (see new text 
SEG X. 84.1 1 ff) and 83 (see new text SEG X. 9 1.22), the inscriptions being 
dated to 424/3 and 42 1 /o respectively. The most striking early instance was 
in 410/9, when ByxvY\Gic, was granted to Thrasybulus' accomplices in the 
assassination of Phrynichus; see Tod 86.30. 

3 The whole question of ownership and property in Greece is discussed in 
detail by VinogradofF, Outlines of Historical Jurisprudence II ch. X. The funda- 
mental basis for property ownership was the state who gave the KJ,??gog. The 
inalienability of the tdrJQOG (VinogradofF, 208) and the revolutionary cry 
yfjg dvadda^og reflect this. However, it is clear from the phrase eywrjaQai 
uvglax; applied to property ownership (204) that, in practice, possession was 
complete apart from, in some instances, right of disposal. There is never any 
suggestion of the citizens paying rent to the state for the land that they 
occupied, which would be most surprising in a society where no differentia- 
tion was made between the state and the citizens acting in a body (see 
VinogradofF, 102-5). 



206 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

HampPs over-formal idea that Amphipolis was a Tolls ohne 
Territorium'. They show that such a special status is not to be 
attributed to Amphipolis. 

How did the relations between Athens and Amphipolis work 
out in fact? The headquarters of one of the Athenian generals for 
the region were at Amphipolis and the Athenians probably im- 
posed some financial obligations on the colony, but the only 
other factor relevant to the maintenance of the Athenian con- 
nection was the democratic constitution. 1 The Athenians could 
hope that this would make the city loyal to Athens, 2 but if any 
other attempt was made to secure Amphipolis' loyalty to 
Athens it failed. Thucydides relates (IV. 103. 2) that there were 
people ready to betray the city to Brasidas, that the Argilian 
settlers were in touch with their former fellow-countrymen, 
who were urging them to betray the city (103.4) an d that the 
Amphipolitans were all suspicious of each other (104,1). 

It seems clear that the normal difficulties in achieving unity 
in a mixed colony 3 were present to Athens' disadvantage. 
Because the settlers from other cities were not tied by kin to 
Athens, they were ready to give up the city to Brasidas, 4 and 
to fight against the Athenians in the Amphipolis campaign. 5 
After that they were unwilling to return to their previous 
situation and instead repudiated the Athenian connection. 6 The 
Athenian dilemma was that they could not found so large a 
colony from their citizens alone and they could not rely on the 
loyalty of settlers of mixed origin. 

The same fate befell the Spartan hopes of Heraclea in 
Trachis. It was founded to subserve Spartan war aims and the 
settlers were very numerous and of mixed origins. 7 The Spar- 
tans exercised a close control over the colony. It provided 
troops for Sparta's campaigns, as, for example., for an expedi- 
tion to Naupactus immediately after the foundation, 8 and in 
385 before Haliartus. 9 The evidence also shows that Sparta sent 
a regular official to govern it. When the Boeotians took control 
of the place in 420 a Spartan was expelled for misgovernment. 10 
When Thucydides gives reasons (111.93.2) for the colony's 

1 See Chapter III. 2 See Chapter III. 

3 See Arist. Pol 1303 b 25. * T huc. IV Io6 ^ 

5 Thuc. V.g.7. e Thuc. V.i i.i. 

7 See Chapter III. s Thuc. III. 100.2. 

9 Xen. Hell. III.v.6. 10 Thuc. V.52.I. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 

failure he includes the behaviour of these officials 
avr&v rcov AauedcujLiovicov ol ayiKVov^evoi). Finally, Xenophon 
mentions a harmost, Labotas, who fell there in battle (Hell. 
I.ii.iS). This evidence is conclusive, 1 and Heraclea may be 
added to the very small list of colonies in which officials sent 
regularly by the mother city are attested. 

In spite of this close control, however, Heraclea proved a 
broken reed for Sparta, and it seems likely that the reason was 
the mixed origin of the settlers. Although Thucydides does not 
mention strife between the racial groups among his reasons for 
the failure of the colony (111.93.2), it would be reasonable to 
assume that this mixed origin was the basis for the objection to 
the Spartan rule. The Spartan settlers themselves would hardly 
have been frightened off by the harsh rule of their own people, 
and this assumption may be supported by Diodorus' account 
(XIV.38.4) of the stasis at Heraclea in 399, which the Spartans 
settled by sending out Herippidas, who surrounded the people 
in assembly with his hoplites and killed five hundred of them. 2 
This must mean that the stasis was considered to be against 
Spartan interests, and it would be a probable inference that 
some of the people of non-Spartan origin had formed an anti- 
Spartan party and became Herippidas' victims. 

In 395, after Haliartus, the Boeotians and Argives took the 
city by treachery, (which also reveals disunity in a colony of 
mixed origins), killed the Spartans that they took there, and 
allowed the settlers of Peloponnesian origin to leave with their 
possessions. They then handed over the city to the Trachinians, 
the old inhabitants of the region. 3 This information not only 
shows that the settlers of different origins had remained dis- 
tinct, but it also reinforces the conjecture that it was the settlers 
of other than Spartan and Peloponnesian origin who had 
earlier objected to Spartan rule and left; for it appears that by 
395 the majority of the population was of Peloponnesian origin. 

We may therefore conclude that Heraclea, which was like 
Amphipolis in its size and mixed nature, and in the intentions of 
the metropolis, was also like Amphipolis in failing to provide a 

1 Gf. Parke, JHS 1 1930, 76, who suggests that the practice established in 
this colony was extended later to Sparta's subordinate allies. 

2 The unpleasant details are to be found in Polyaenus ILai. 

3 Diod. XIV.82.6 ff. 



2 o8 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

strong point of Spartan power abroad, because the mixed 
origin of the settlers made the colony divided and unreliable. 

Among late imperial colonies the settlements in the Adriatic 
attributed to Dionysius I of Syracuse deserve a mention. The 
sources for this colonization are exceptionally bad, and as a 
result its extent and nature are disputed. But while Beaumont 
seems to have been right in showing that the bases for a belief 
that Dionysius had an empire all over the Adriatic are ex- 
tremely feeble, 1 Gitti is also right in showing that Beaumont 
went too far in his disbelief. 2 

The most important evidence is the passage Diod. XV. 13.1, 
where we are told that Dionysius decided to found cities in the 
Adriatic, 

diavoovjjiBvog vov S 16viov Ka^ov^svov nogov IdionoiBlaQai^ Iva rov snl 
rf]v "HneiQov nkovv aacpakfj Haraansvaa^ xal Ttofou; lyr\ Id las sk ?& 
dvvaadac vaval 



The first necessity is to establish the meaning of nogov. This is 
discussed by Gitti in an appendix to his article, where he makes 
a crucial mistake. For he discusses the meaning not of 'Idwoe 
noQOQ but of *I6vio$ HO^TCOQ. No one would deny his contention 
that 'lovtog xofao$ meant in the fourth century the whole 
Adriatic, but 'lovioQ noQos should rather be the Ionian straits, 
which, as it happens, suits much better Dionysius' aims des- 
cribed in the sentence quoted; for he wanted a safe crossing to 
Epirus and harbours at which his ships would call. 

In general, however, Gitti is to be followed in his attempted 
reconstruction of the extent of Dionysius' empire in the Adriatic. 
Uncertain though each individual case remains, Dionysius 
seems to have founded a few settlements in the Adriatic and to 
have had considerable interests in the area of the Dalmatian 
Coast. 4 Unfortunately the paucity of the evidence conceals from 
us the methods that Dionysius used to control his colonies. 
Diodorus 3 general statement of his imperial ambitions is sup- 
ported by one single detail: there was a governor of the colony 

1 JHS Ivi 19365 202 f. 2 La Parola del Passato vii 1952, 161-91. 

3 'Intending to possess the so-called Ionian straits, in order to make safe 
the crossing to Epirus and to have his own cities in which ships could 
anchor.' 

4 See Gitti, 178 ff, for Dionysius' settlements and interests on the East 
coast of the Adriatic. 



ATHENS AND LATE IMPERIAL COLONIES 

at Lissus appointed by Dionysius. 1 This is to be set beside the 
official from Sinope at Cotyora, the Spartan governors of Hera- 
clea and the Corinthian officers at Potidaea, and understood as 
a sign of the mother city's control over the affairs of the colony. 
Otherwise we can say no more than that it seems probable that 
Dionysius used colonies for his imperial aims. 

In this chapter we have seen examples of very close control 
imposed on colonies founded with imperial intentions. Al- 
though HampPs theory that colonies became Toleis ohne 
Territorium' has been found without substance, some of the 
colonies discussed were clearly in general terms regarded as the 
possessions of the mother city. There was, therefore, clearly no 
theoretical objection to colonies closely dependent on the 
mother city, or to the use of colonies to build up power oversea. 

The examples all come from a late period in Greek coloniz- 
ation. Only the notable control exercised by Sinope over her 
colonies 2 might have been established at an earlier period. 
Xenophon's story does not reveal when the practices began, and 
the colonies were probably all founded a very long time before 
the events described. 3 But without further knowledge it would 
be dangerous to assume that Sinope's control was very ancient. 
Its existence is perhaps to be explained by the fact that the 
cities were on the edge of the Greek world, and therefore felt the 
need to combine in face of the barbarians whom they constantly 
feared. 4 In such circumstances very close relations and tight 
control may have been acceptable for practical reasons. How- 
ever, though exceptional circumstances may have produced 
exceptional arrangements, the justification of Sinope's position 
related by Xenophon shows that the mother city's claim to 
control her colonies was not thought abnormal. 

Athens' relations to her colonies seem to represent the most ! 
extreme control by the metropolis. Some of her colonies, the 
cleruchies, were actual extensions of the Athenian state, and 
even those without this status were treated as her possessions. It 
was emphasized above that the cleruchies and the descriptions 

1 Diod. XV.I4.2. 2 See above pp. 201 ff. 

3 The foundation dates of Gotyora and Gerasus are not recorded, but the 
Eusebian date for Trapezus is 756. 1 discuss the dates of Greek colonies in 
the Black Sea in Bull. Inst. Class. Studies v 1958,, 25 ff. 

4 Gf. Xen. Anab V.v.23- 



210 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

of them by ancient writers show that a Greek colony could 
theoretically in the fifth century be a settlement of citizens 
abroad. The cleruchy appears to be the answer to the problem 
of normal Greek colonization, for the state and its population 
were not diminished. But lack of numbers and perhaps the 
feeling that Athenian citizens should only be settled fairly close 
to Athens meant that the cleruchy could not be used for large, 
distant, imperial foundations. The substitute, the mixed colony, 
proved unsatisfactory as a way of extending the mother city's 
power abroad. 

Both the limitations of the cleruchy and the failure of the 
mixed colony to serve imperial ends suggest that colonization 
was, even in the late period, not an ideal way for Greek cities to 
expand. If the distance from the metropolis was great and the 
numbers of the colonists needed to be large, a satisfactory 
dependent colony was hard to establish. Thus the very close 
control exercised by Athens and some other mother cities in the 
later period shows that there was no theoretical objection to 
colonial empires, but in practice they remained difficult to 
create and maintain. 



CHAPTER X 

CONCLUSION 

E great difficulty of this investigation, as was stated in 
JL Chapter I, is that the sources which provide the evidence 
are mostly centuries later than the foundations of the colonies. 
There is no completely satisfactory escape from this difficulty, 
and a large proportion of the instances of the relations between 
colonies and their mother cities that we have discussed belong 
to the fifth and fourth centuries. However, there is enough evi- 
dence about earlier times to reinforce the arguments advanced 
in Chapter I to show that the relationship was important from 
the beginning. From the seventh century there are, for example, 
the substance of the foundation decree for Gyrene, 1 the founda- 
tion of Epidamnus and Selinus by oikists summoned by Corcyra 
from Corinth and by Megara Hyblaea from Megara in Greece, 2 
the dedication of Geloans to Athena Lindia, 3 and the reception 
of Bacchiad exiles at Corcyra. 4 Also from early times we have 
Thasos' relations with Paros and several instances, some more, 
some less certain, of mother cities' control over colonies at a 
short distance. 5 This evidence seems to be sufficient to disprove 
any idea that the relations between colonies and mother cities 
increased in importance in the fifth century. We know more 
about these relations from the fifth century onwards simply 
because there is more evidence from those times for Greek 
history in general. 

The idea that the Cypselid colonies of Corinth and those of 
Athens represented a new type and are entirely different from 
those founded earlier 6 is also wrong, at least in emphasis. It is 
quite true that Corinth and Athens, owing to a combination of 
imperial ambitions and ability to overcome the effects of dis- 
tance, exercised an unusual degree of control over their colo- 
nies, control which was reflected at the foundation of the 

1 See Chapter II. 2 See Chapter II. 3 See Chapter VIII. 

4 See Chapter VI. 6 See Chapter V. 

6 This is Will's thesis. La Nouvelle Clio vi 19545 413-60. 

211 



212 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

colonies in the position of the oikist. But the evidence for similar 
control by other mother cities, some of it of early date, 1 shows 
that it is wrong to conceive of a sharp line dividing the colonies 
of Corinth and Athens from the rest. In fact this assumption too 
depends finally on an argument from silence, for it is about 
these colonies that we are best informed. 

However, there still remains another, wider, application of 
the argument from silence. When the number of Greek colonies 
is considered and the length of time in question, the evidence 
for the relations between Greek colonies and mother cities that 
we have reviewed must seem small in quantity. Should one, 
therefore, conclude that it is all exceptional? That the great 
silence reveals the general rule, and any relationship attested 
between a Greek colony and its mother city is an exception 
from it? 

It is very rare to be able to argue confidently from the 
absence of evidence that a colony and mother city maintained 
no relationship. Such an argument is perhaps admissible, how- 
ever, in the case of Thera and Gyrene. When the colony was 
experiencing political difficulties under Battus III, it sent to 
Delphi for advice and the oracle suggested that Demonax of 
Mantinea be appointed mediator. 2 At an earlier date Battus 
Eudaimon acted through Delphi in inviting settlers from all 
Greece to strengthen the colony. 3 On both occasions Thera, the 
mother city, is conspicuously absent, and this is especially 
noticeable when new settlers were invited; for, as we have seen, 
it had been provided in the foundation decree that the mother 
city could send further settlers to the colony. 4 

To argue generally, however, that where evidence is lacking 
the colony maintained no relations with its mother city would 
be an unsound procedure, and is shown to be unjustified by the 
new evidence on the subject, largely from inscriptions, which 
has been added in comparatively recent times. If epigraphical 
discoveries of modern times have provided evidence for 
strikingly close relations between Thasos and her colonies, or 
between Miletus and hers, or between Argos, Cnossus and 
Tylissus, not to mention less notable examples, it is surely right 
to conclude that more evidence would show more instances of 

1 See Chapter V. 2 See Hdt. IV.iGi.i; Plut. De muL virt. 26iB. 

3 See Hdt. IV. 159. i ff. * See Chapter IV. 



CONCLUSION 213 

relations between colonies and mother cities. In general too the 
evidence that we possess seems to be sufficient in quantity and 
sufficiently widely spread to be regarded as reasonably re- 
presentative of the whole field of Greek colonial relationships. 

The new evidence also helps to free Thucydides from the 
charge that he overestimated the importance of these relation- 
ships. His information , for instance, about the religious obliga- 
tions owed by colonies to their mother cities is confirmed as 
generally valid by inscriptions about the offerings of colonies to 
the gods of the metropolis. 1 But such information is perhaps less 
striking than his emphasis on the relationship's effect in creating 
wartime alliances. Apart from the instances mentioned above in 
Chapter I, which included Melos' relationship to Sparta and 
that of the Ionian cities to Athens, 2 his idea that the relation- 
ship justified an alliance is clearly revealed by his statements 
regarding two occasions which concerned the relationship of 
Sparta and Doris. Here too the relationship of colony and 
metropolis, 3 if based on actual events at all, went back for its 
origin to the times of the migrations. 

When the Phocians attacked Doris in c. 457 and took one of 
the townships there, the Spartans sent 1500 hoplites of their 
own and 10,000 of the allies and compelled the Phocians to give 
the city back. 4 The expedition has been thought far too large 
simply for the coercion of the Phocians, 5 and it led to the 
Battle of Tanagra, which suggests that the Spartans went pre- 
pared to fight it out with the Athenians. Thucydides, however, 
considers it unnecessary to give any other motive than that 
implied in his beginning: KOI (frcouscov ar^arsvaavrcov ec, AcoQid^ 
TJJV Am&dai/Aovicov ^rirqonohv^ The second occasion was in 426. 
The Trachinians were being attacked by the Oetaeans; they 
sent to Sparta for help and with them went an embassy from 
Doris, 'the metropolis of the Spartans 5 (17 prftQfaofa ra>v 
Acwedcuftoptaw), for Doris too was suffering Oetaean attacks. 7 
The Spartans again sent help and Thucydides gives us their 
motives; they wanted to help the Trachinians and Dorians, but 

1 See Chapter VIII. 2 See Chapter I. 

3 Thuc. I.ioy.s, Hdt. VIII.3I. 4 Thuc. 1.107.2. 

5 Cf. CAN. V.79 ff. 

6 'And when the Phocians attacked Doris, the mother country of the 
Spartans.* 

7 Thuc. 111.92.1-4. 



COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

at the same time they thought that the enterprise would be to 
their advantage in the war against the Athenians. On neither of 
these occasions does Thucydides distinguish between pretext 
and true motive, though he is accustomed to make such dis- 
tinctions. A modern observer would conclude that the Spartans 
used their relationship as a pretext on both occasions, and the 
reason why Thucydides did not, apparently, see it as such must 
be that he regarded the desire to help a related city as a normal 
motive for war. 

An inscription which includes records of Melian contribu- 
tions to the Peloponnesian war fund in the Archidamian War 3 - 
is perhaps evidence for the support in war that Thucydides 
found normal between colony and mother city. But the effect 
of the relations between colonies and mother cities regarding 
war is more clearly illustrated by another inscription, which we 
have already discussed. In the latter stage of the Peloponnesian 
War the Neapolitans fought, and were later reconciled, with 
their mother city Thasos. 2 The stone concerning this is con- 
temporary evidence to support that from Thucydides and other 
writers, and shows the shame attached to wars between colonies 
and mother cities; its converse implication is that they were 
natural allies. Of this too we have an example known solely 
from an inscription: the alliance in the latter part of the sixth 
century of Epizephyrian Locri and its two colonies Hipponium 
and Medma. 3 

Thucydides also implies that a mother city should have a 
position of undefined hegemony, 4 and here he is more fully sup- 
ported by evidence from inscriptions. That relating to the 
Locrian colony at Naupactus contains a clause that the colony 
should not secede from its metropolis; 5 the Thasian inscription 
encouraging delation shows an even more marked control by a 
mother city over its colonies; 6 and the inscriptions about 
Argos, Cnossus and Tylissus reveal that the colonies accorded a 
general primacy to their mother city. 7 Beside these may be set 
the remarks of the ambassador from Sinope at Cotyora. 8 In 

1 Tod 62; cf. Adcock, Melanges Glotz, 1-6. The Melian contributions are 
recorded in lines 24 fi, 36 if. 

2 See Chapter V. 3 See Chapter V. 

4 1.25.3 f; 38.2-5. 6 Tod 24.1 1 fj see above. Chapter IV. 

* See Chapter V. 7 See Chapter VIII. 

8 See Chapter IX. 



CONCLUSION 215 

none of these cases did the mother city's control over its colonies 
need special explanation, Thucydides is representing the 
general view, which saw nothing surprising in mother cities that 
controlled their colonies. 

On this matter it is clear that there were commonly-held and 
fairly consistent opinions in Greece. Another important ques- 
tion is whether there were similar fixed ideas about the relation- 
ship in all its aspects, or, more simply, whether it was homo- 
geneous throughout the Greek world. In the realm of ideas it is 
clear from the evidence on the act of foundation discussed in 
Part I that there were fixed general principles about the way a 
colony should be established, and that it was generally believed 
that the new community was in many senses an extension of the 
old, so that their continuing relationship was a matter of im- 
portance to both. On the other hand each foundation probably 
differed from others in the detailed arrangements, if any, made 
for that relationship. Such differences were seen in the founda- 
tion decrees discussed above in Chapter IV. 

Even more in the development of the subsequent relationship 
there was variety rather than uniformity. For here practical 
circumstances overrode theoretical principles, and the relation- 
ship was close or loose, good or bad, according to such factors as 
the distance separating colony and metropolis, or the ambitions 
of the metropolis, or the individual interests of the two com- 
munities, which might coincide or conflict. 1 In general the 
closest relations between colonies and mother cities have been 
found where the colonies were not far from the mother city, or 
where the mother city was sufficiently powerful and ambitious 
to overcome the obstacle of distance. So though there was no 
theoretical objection to Greek mother cities which controlled 
their colonies, practical factors, distance and the power of the 
metropolis, generally determined the degree to which a mother 
city exercised or tried to exercise such control. 

But the aspects of the relationship which depended on the 
mother city's power and ambitions are only a part, and perhaps 
not the most important part, of the relations between Greek 

1 Gorcyra is an example of a colony which had interests which conflicted 
with those of its metropolis; see Chapter VII. On the other hand there may 
have been coincidence of interests between Sinope and her South Pontic 
colonies; see Chapter IX, 



2l6 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

colonies and mother cities in general. In Chapters VI and VIII 
we saw relations which did not depend on such influences: the 
opening of the citizenship of one community to the other, for 
instance, or the religious connections between them, or the 
reconciliation of colonies' quarrels by their mother cities. Such 
relations may be regarded as the fundamental or general basis 
of the connection between colonies and mother cities, on which 
closer relationships could be built if circumstances were 
favourable. 

It is above all the religious relations which show the funda- 
mental nature of the colony-metropolis relationship. There 
could be no more serious mistake than to think that this relation- 
ship is shown to be purely formal and of no real significance by 
the fact that the complaints of Corinth against Corcyra recorded 
by Thucydides only become specific in the field of religion. 1 It 
shows rather the depth and antiquity of this kind of relation- 
ship. 

The earliest way in which Greek communities were joined 
with each other was by having the same sanctuary and the same 
cults. Thus the early Greek leagues were religious leagues in the 
sense that they were based on a common religious centre and 
worship. 2 The religious function of such leagues may have been 
primary, but the religious and political aspects were originally 
not separate, 3 The more purely political leagues of the classical 
period sometimes had their roots in the older type. So the 
Panionion was the centre of the political union of the Ionian 
cities at the time of the Ionian Revolt, 4 and the Delian League 
had as its centre the home of ancient Ionian religious gather- 
ings. 5 The relationship between colony and mother city perhaps 
became more exclusively political at the same time, but the 
ancient forms of expressing their union remained important. So 
some of the Corinthian colonies seem to be similar to subord- 

1 Cf. Beaumont, JHS Ivi 1936, 183, who writes: 'Is it really credible that 
the Corinthians disliked the Gorcyreans to such an extent for the reasons he 
(i.e. Thucydides) gives?' and considers the Corinthian claims c a trifling con- 
cession to sentiment'. 

2 As e.g. the Amphictyonies, the Panionion, the Calaurian League. For an 
account of these see Ehrenberg, Der Staat der Griechen I, 82-5. 

3 Gf. Ehrenberg p. 83: c eine absolute Scheidung von religioser und 
politischer sphare den Dingen Gewalt antuf. 

4 Hdt. VLy; cf. Ehrenberg 83, 93. 

5 See Thuc. 111.104.3 ff. 



CONCLUSION 217 

inate allies, 1 but their loyalty was expressed by the fulfilment of 
their religious obligations. 2 

It should now be clear why Thucydides was shocked at the 
violation of the relations of kinship between colonies and mother 
cities in the Sicilian campaign. 3 The League of Delos, being 
based in his view on ancient Ionian kinship, did not generally 
flout such ties, but there were many individual instances where 
political alignments of the later fifth century cut across the old 
relationships, which he regarded as traditional and right. His 
basic ideas are the product of traditions from an older Greek 
world, which were no longer always effective in the times that 
he described. 

The relationship of colony and mother city often provided 
from early times a way of bridging the gulf between indepen- 
dent city states. Nearly three centuries separated the beginning 
of the great colonizing movement and the first writing of history, 
and we know comparatively little of the relations between 
Greek states during this time. Our knowledge and understand- 
ing are enhanced, if we realize that a regular and effective link 
between them was the relationship of colony and mother city. 

1 See Chapter VII. 2 See Thuc. 1.254. 

3 VII. 57; see above, Chapter I. 



APPENDIX I 

CORINTH'S WESTERN AIMS 
IN THE STH CENTURY 

THE colonization of Syracuse and Corcyra in the later eighth 
century has been regarded as the means by which Corinth 
consciously sought a predominant trading position in the West. 
Thus we should have a very early example of colonies estab- 
lished to fulfil a mother city's own commercial aims, which 
implies the intention that the colonies be closely related or 
actually dependent and, incidentally, a corresponding diminu- 
tion in the independence of the oikists. 

The hypothesis was originally put forward by Blakeway, 1 and 
appears with further arguments in Dunbabin's The Western 
Greeks.* The starting point was the belief that there was trade 
with the West before any of the western colonies was founded, 
in which no one state predominated, whereas from the time of 
the early colonies in Sicily and Italy till the end of the seventh 
century trade with the West was allegedly monopolized by 
Corinth. It was, therefore, suggested that Corinth's colonization 
was designed to win this commercial supremacy. This hypo- 
thesis was attacked by R. M. Cook, 3 who held that the archae- 
ological evidence showed neither that Corinth had a complete 
monopoly nor that she had achieved commercial prominence 
suddenly. 4 But recent archaeological work has shown that there 
is no evidence for trade with the West before the first colonies 
were founded. Apart from Mycenean pottery, 5 the earliest 



1 BSA xxxiii 1933, 202 fF. 2 p p> 

3 JHS Ixvi 1946, 80 f; OR Ixiii 1949, 113 ff. 

4 He also pointed out that the thesis of .a western monopoly must be 
judged against the predominance of Corinthian pottery in mainland 
markets too in this period; JHS Ixvi 1946, 84. 

5 Mycenean pottery has been found on various sites in the West. It is 
studied in full by Lord William Taylour, Mycenean Pottery in Italy (Cambridge 
I 95^)- Proof of continuity of contact between Greece and Italy from the 
Mycenean period to that of the first colonies is not found. Such continuity 
has been assumed by S. A. Immerwahr in her review of Lord William 
Taylour's book (AJA Ixiii 1959, 295 ff), but a single sherd which may be 

218 



APPENDIX I 219 

Greek material in the West has been found at the Greek 
colony of Pithecusae on Ischia. 1 Thus the hypothesis that there 
was a connection between colonization and a change in the 
character of the trade loses its archaeological support. 

An attempt to save it has been made 2 by attributing the 
character of a trading post to the colony of Pithecusae. But 
there is nothing to indicate that it had this character rather than 
that of a normal colony, 3 and Strabo's information (.247) &&* 
the inhabitants owed their early prosperity to fruitfulness 
(evrvxtfaavret; di evxaQmav) implies that its economy was agri- 
cultural. Its offshore position could as well have been chosen 
for safety as for trade. It was the security provided by the sea 
which led many Greek colonists to choose a site on an island 
close to the shore or a peninsula. 4 But though there no longer 
seems to be an archaeological basis for Blakeway's and Dun- 
babin's hypothesis, the other arguments that they advanced 
might appear to stand independently. 5 

Support for the hypothesis was found in Strabo's account 
(VI. 269) that Corcyra and Syracuse were established at the 
same date. Eusebius, however, gives 709 as the date of Cor- 
cyra' s foundation. 6 Strabo's account has a suspect appearance; 
it combines the foundation not only of Corcyra and Syracuse 
but also of Groton. Dunbabin (15 f) rejects the synchronization 
of Croton and Syracuse on the grounds that such synchroniza- 
tions are automatically suspect, though both he and Blakeway 

protogeometric found at Scoglio del Tonno, Taranto (Mycenean Pottery in 
Italy, no. 165, p. 118, pi. 14:19) is hardly a sufficient basis for this assump- 
tion. It suggests possible sporadic contacts between the Ionian Islands and 
the heel of Italy (cf. Lord William Taylour 1 19, 186 f). 

1 See Vallet, Rhegion et %ancle ch. I, especially 43 f. 

2 By S. A. Immerwahr, 295 n. i. 

3 As R. M. Cook has convincingly shown; Historia xi 1962, 1 13 f. On the 
differences between a trading post and a normal colony see Chapter I 
above. 

4 Examples: Sinope,see Polyb. IV.56.5 ff; Iasos,see AMxv 1895, 139, and 
plan PL III; Syracuse, see Thuc. VI. 3. 2. For more examples and valuable 
discussion of this point see J. M. Cook, Greek Settlement in the Eastern Aegean 
and Asia Minor, CAH, I and II revised Edition, 24 f. 

5 Good points against the view that Corinth's early colonization was for 
trade were made by Gwynn, JHS xxxviii 1918, 92 f; more recently Will 
(Korinthiaka 321 ff) has briefly listed arguments against it. 

6 A date in the last decades of the eighth century is made certain by recent 
archaeological investigations at Corcyra (see M. IIaQactKsvaidri<; 9 KaBq/LieQivrj 
(Athens) iG.iii. 1961), but they cannot settle the dispute between 733 and 709. 



220 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

accept the synchronization of Syracuse and Corcyra, The 
existence of the Eusebian date, however, suggests strongly that 
this synchronization is equally suspect, and it may be added 
that if there was no pre-colonization trade the realization of 
Corcyra's importance as a port of call to the West 1 would only 
be likely after the foundations of the Sicilian colonies. It would 
thus be easy to understand that the Corinthian occupation of 
Corcyra came later. If Corcyra was founded in 709 and Syra- 
cuse in 733 their foundations were not part of a single Corin- 
thian state policy. 

The fact that both Archias and Chersicrates were probably 
Bacchiads 2 was taken to suggest the state organization which 
the theory requires. Late sources tell us of private reasons why 
these two wanted to leave Corinth, 3 but even if these are con- 
sidered of doubtful value, a member of the ruling clan could 
clearly be required as oikist without the expedition necessarily 
being a planned act of state, as Theras and Dorieus show. 4 And 
if Syracuse was largely founded by Archias' initiative Thucy- 
dides' wording (1.3.2), in which Archias is the prime mover 
and not ol KoQivdiot,, is explained. The story of Aethiops, who 
bartered his allotment of land for a honey cake on the voyage 
out, 5 can hardly be used against this. Blakeway maintained 
(p. 206 and n. i) that it showed that e the expedition was care- 
fully planned before the fleet set sail' and 'the division of land 
was made before the expedition started'. But every settler must 
have known he would receive an allotment; he could barter it 
before the actual division was made. 

Arguments for the theory confined to the two Corinthian 
foundations are thus seen to be weak, but there remains the 
wider suggestion that Corinth and Chalcis can be seen to have 

1 See Thuc. 1.36.2; 44.3. 

2 Archias is described as a Heraclid by Thucydides, VI.3.2., as is Chersi- 
crates by Strabo, VI.aGg. The description has usually been taken to mean 
they were Bacchiads, e.g. by BeVard, 118 f. The point seems to be made 
certain by Arist. frg. 61 1, 19: Kogivdog: epaffttevae d& %ai BanaTog TQfaog rA. 
. . . $ OvyardQeg /uv tQsls, viol ds $m;d, ol TO ysvog ofircog f]vf7]Ga.v chare 
BaK%ldag xal ^HQaxheidwv xaheiaQai Toijg an a^rcov. Chersicrates is expressly 
stated to have been a Bacchiad by the scholiast toAp. Rhod. IV. 1212, 1216; 
see Timaeus frg. 80, FGH IIIB 623 f. 

3 For Chersicrates see schol. Ap. Rhod. ibid.; for Archias, [Plut.] Am. Narr. 
772E ff; Diod. VIII. 8. Cf. Berard, 119. 

4 Hdt. IV. 147 ff; V.42. 

5 Athenaeus iGyd, the ultimate source being Archilochus. 



APPENDIX I 221 

been working in concert with regard to their western coloniz- 
ation. 1 

Dunbabin suggested that this can be seen in the siting of the 
early Sicilian colonies. 2 The Ghalcidians secured themselves the 
rich Laestrygonian plain by the colonies of Naxos, Catane and 
Leontini, while Syracuse was the best harbour in Eastern 
Sicily. Evidence of Corinthian and Chalcidian co-operation is 
also seen in the Corinthian expulsion of Eretrians from Corcyra 3 

1 See Blakeway 205 ff., Dunbabin 10-17. 

2 Dunbabin's theories rest partly on the Thucydidean chronology for the 
Sicilian colonies, a system which he ably defended in Appendix I. The dates 
of these colonies have been the subject of much recent work, culminating in 
the long book of R. Van Comptrnoll^lZtudede Chronologic et d' Historiographie 
Siciliotes (Brussels 1960). Thucydides' dates have been attacked from two 
points of view. Vallet and Villard supported the earlier dates for Naxos and 
Megara found in inferior sources (Naxos 757, Megara 757-50, Syracuse 733) 
mainly on archaeological grounds; see BCH Ixvii 1952, 289-346. For a 
further statement of these views and references to opposition to them see 
Vallet, Rhegion et %ande, chs. I and II, and p. 47 n. r. There is an admirably 
balanced brief discussion of the subject by Bijvanck, Bull, van d. Verein. tot. 
Bevord. d. Kennis van d. Antieke Beschaving (Leiden) xxxiv 1959, 68-71, ex- 
pressing a cautious confidence in the traditional chronology. To my mind 
the archaeological dating is not sufficiently certain to be preferable to the 
detailed and self-consistent Thucydidean account. Much of the dating of 
eighth- and seventh-century Greek history depends on Payne's absolute dates 
for Protocorinthian and Corinthian, the only external supports for which 
came from the foundation dates of Syracuse and Selinus given by Thucy- 
dides; cf. Hopper, BSA xliv 1949, 169 ff. It now seems, however, that the 
Bocchoris scarab excavated by Buchner at Pithecusae (not yet published by 
Buchner; see however, La Parola del Passato liv 1957, 225, and Trendall, 
Archaeology in Sicily and Magna Graecia, with JHS Ixxvii 1957, 41) provides 
valid external confirmation for Payne's dating of the beginning of Proto- 
corinthian. An attempt to lower drastically the traditional dating of 
Geometric and Protocorinthian is shown to be without basis by Boardman, 
Historia vii 1958, 250. 

Van Gompernolle attacks Thucydides' dates on the grounds that (i) they 
were taken over from Antiochus and (2) they were worked out by reckoning 
generations in a completely unhistorical and artificial way. That Thucy- 
dides used Antiochus seems most probable, as Dover has also shown (Maia 
vi 1953, i ff) but even Van Gompernolle's most subtle and complicated 
arguments have not removed the strong objections to the theory that 
Thucydides 3 dates are the result of adding artificial generations. These are 
expressed by Westlake in a very judicious review of Van Compernolle (C.jR. 
n.s. xii 1962, 266 ff) including what is perhaps the strongest: 'Such methods 
would have shocked Thucydides profoundly'. 

3 Plut. QG XI. The passage is described as 'unique' and 'of dubious 
authority' by Halliday, who is also inclined to reject the synchronization of 
Syracuse and Corcyra; see Greek Questions of Plutarch., 53 f. But it would be 
wrong to reject it out of hand, and Blakeway argues well in support of it, 205 
n. 4. 



222 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

and the ejection of Megarian settlers from the Chalcidian 
colony Leontini. 1 In the first of these events the Corinthians are 
thought to be acting against Chalcis' enemies, in the second 
Chalcidians against Corinth's; for Corinth was at war with 
Megara in the last quarter of the eighth century. 2 

The expulsion of the Megarian colonists from Leontini must 
be considered in conjunction with Thucydides 5 information 
(1.4.1) that they were received into Leontini in the first place. 
This hardly suggests Chalcidian enmity against the Megarians. 
Their later expulsion would be naturally attributable to the 
civil strife common in mixed colonies. The expulsion of the 
Eretrian settlers from Corcyra seems to be irrelevant through 
chronological difficulties. If we date it with Dunbabin and 
Blakeway to 733, we seem to be too early for the hostility be- 
tween Chalcis and Eretria; 3 not long before, they co-operated 
in founding Cumae. 4 If we date it to 709, that is too late to be 
connected with the earliest Sicilian colonization. Of all these 
arguments, therefore, there only remains the hypothesis that 
the Corinthians took the best harbour, the Chalcidians the best 
land, and that this shows an agreement on spheres of influence. 
It seems possible that an amicable division was made among 
the settlers of the new island, but an agreement between two 
mother cities in the eighth century on spheres of influence has 
an anachronistic air. Nor does the siting of the colonies alone 

1 Thuc. VT.4i; Polyaen. .5.1-11. 

2 For this war see Hammond, BSA xlix 1954, 93 if. 

3 The date of the Lelantine War is notoriously uncertain. But it is only 
by referring the event on Corcyra to it (and to 733) and by including the 
expulsion of the Megarian colonists from Leontini similarly, that it is put so 
close to the co-operation of the protagonists at Cumae; see, for example, 
Forrest's discussion, Historia vi 1957, 161 fF, where these indications are 
used to give the high date. If the ArchHochus fragment (Diehl 3 3) refers to the 
war it is easier to think of a date nearer 700; cf. Forrest, 163. Similarly if 
Ameinocles' shipbuilding at Samos (Thuc. 1.13.3) is attached to the war, as 
Forrest, 161, this gives us the date c. 704. In some sensible and restrained 
observations on the war, which are to be preferred to the views followed by 
Forrest, Boardman suggests two phases of conflict, but this is partly to ex- 
plain the Gorcyrean episode which he too attributes to the war; see BSA 
Hi 1957, 276. For a useful collection of the literary sources for the war and 
an attempt to reconcile their divergent implications see Will, Korinthiaka 
391-404. But the idea of a war lasting (with intervals) from c. 700 to c. 550 
seems a desperate expedient, and general considerations about Ionian 
conditions suggest that the war was before 670, see Roebuck, Ionian Trade and 
Colonization 73 n. 8. 

4 See Dunbabin 3, 5 fF. 



APPENDIX I 223 

prove any long term planning and co-operation. Thus this far- 
going hypothesis regarding the nature of the colonization of 
Syracuse and Corcyra seems not to be well founded; so that 
there is no need to attribute here a special character to the 
oikists or act of foundation in general. 



APPENDIX II 

TRANSLATIONS 
OF FOUNDATION DECREES 1 



i. Cyrene 2 

"Ogxiov ra>v 
^'E]do^s rai sxxkriaiai * snsl 'AaoMcov avro^dr^sv B[dr~] 

25 TOOL xal OrjQalois dnoL\xl^ai\ Kvgdvav, oQiarov doxel O^^al 
o]ig dnons^nsv eg rav [Ai^av Bdrro/j, ^sv dQ%aysra\y 
r]s nal fiacrdfja srai^ovq ds rovQ 07]Qaiov<; nUv snl rat laa[i 
H\al rat opoiai nkh xara rov olxov vlov 6e Sva %araA[e] 
yeoOai r[a> OMCO exdora), nkh ds] rovg rifi&vtaq, KOI ra>v [SA 

30 X\cw riqaioov shevQeQot;, [6' %a ^], nHv. Al /ASV ds Ma 

KOTS% [aw] 

n rav oiniatav ol anoixoi,, rajv olusicov toy HaranMov[ra] 
vareQov slg Aifivav KOI nofatrimc, nal r^a^ n&8s%\sv\ 
xal yds rag ddsanoTO) anohay%dv&v. Al Se na ^ xar[s%] 
COVTI rav olKiaiav ^ds ol r\^aloi JULV dvvavrai sniuovQs 

35 v, alhaavdyKai a^dcovn ltr\ snl nsvrs, sx ras ydg ajiip,\_sv] 
ddcscoQ Orfgavde sni rd avrajy xQ^ara xai fjjueju, nofadr 
ag. C O ds xa ju,r) Xfjt, nhsv dnoarsMotaas rag ^roAtog, Qavd\ai\ 
rsvrai xal rd %Qrjfiara sarco avrov dap,6aia. e O ds an 
os fj ddtfi^cov f) narqg vlov ^ ddel<pso<; ddeA. 

40 <psov naiaslrai &ISQ 6 IA/YI Aecov nAsv. *Enl rovrou; ogxia en 
oiriaavro ol rs avrsl ]u,svov[r]s$ xal ol nMovrss olxi^ovrs 
g xal d^dg snorfaavro rdg ravra na^swras; xal p,r} sp, 

1 These translations are intended to provide no more than close render- 
ings of the three main texts discussed above in Chapter IV. References to 
publications of the documents will be found there. Italics are used to indi- 
cate words which are uncertain owing to gaps in the originals or for any 
other reason. 

2 As this text is less easily consulted than those referring to Naupactus and 
Brea, I print the Greek, i.e. the relevant portion ofSEG IX. 3 except in lines 
28 f, where I give Wilhelm's text. On this see my discussion in JHS Ixxx 1 960, 
98. Translations of the text which I have consulted with profit in preparing 
my own are those of Oliverio, Riv. diFiL vi 1928, 222 ff.; Chamoux, Cyriw 
sous la monarchic des Battiades, 106 f.; and one prepared for teaching purposes 
by my colleague Mr. C. A. Rodewald. 

224 



APPENDIX II 225 

rcov skfafivai olneovTcov fj r&v avrsi fjiev 
ovrcov. KTIQUVOI; MdaaavrsQ Hokoadt; narsnaiov ena 
45 Qsd)/j,evot, ndvre<; crvvevdovres Kcd avdgec; xal yvvain 
eg HCLL naldsc, nal naidianai TOJU, /MJ Sju/Asvovra tovwu; 
dyUd naQfieaJVTa Karahe$eada viv Hal na 
SansQ rog xoloao$, Hal avrov nal yovov HOI %Qr\ 
para. Tolai 6s efjLfjLsvoiaiv TOVTOK; rolg OQHIOH; nal roig 
50 TtHoim slfafivav H\_al\ T[OIQ ju,s]wiai sv rigai fjjusv nokh 
a nal ay add nal av[rol<; nal y<f]voig. 

AGREEMENT 1 OF THE FOUNDERS 

Decided by the assembly. Since Apollo has given a spon- 
taneous prophesy 2 to Battus and the Theraeans ordering them 
to colonize Gyrene, the Theraeans resolve that Battus be sent to 
Libya as leader and king: that the Theraeans sail as his com- 
panions: that they sail on fair and equal terms, according to 
family; 2 that one son be conscripted from each family] that those 
who sail be in the prime of life; 4 and that, of the rest of the 
Theraeans, any free man who wishes may sail. If the colonists 
establish the settlement, any of their fellow-citizens 5 who later 
sails to Libya shall have a share in citizenship and honours and 
shall be allotted a portion of the unoccupied land. But if they 
do not establish the settlement and the Theraeans are unable to 
help them and they suffer inescapable troubles up to five years, 6 
let them return from that land without fear to Thera, to their 
possessions and to be citizens. But he who is unwilling to sail 
when the city sends him shall be liable to punishment by death 
and his goods shall be confiscated. And he who receives or pro- 
tects another, even if it be a father his son or brother his brother, 
shall suffer the same penalty as the man unwilling to sail. On 

1 For this rendering of OQWOV see my remarks in JHS Ixxx 1960, 103 f. 

2 I gladly take this opportunity of acknowledging the correctness of 
Parke's interpretation here (JHS Ixxxii 1962, 145 f), which I follow in 
preference to my earlier mistaken opinion of the force of a^rojudr^sv. 

3 On this uncertain part of the document see my discussion in JHS Ixxx 
1960, 98. 

4 This translation of rov$ rjp&vTag is preferred to simply 'the adults* (as, 
e.g., Wilhelm, Griechische Inschriften rechtlichen Inhalts, 6), since it takes 
account of the other meaning ofrjpdoo (to be in the flower of youth) and the 
needs of a colonial expedition. 

5 On this translation of olxsiwv see above p. 64 n. i . 

6 For another possible interpretation of this phrase see above p. 53 n. i . 



226 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

these conditions they made an agreement, those who stayed 
here and those who sailed on the colonial expedition, and they 
put curses on those who should transgress these conditions and 
not abide by them, whether those living in Libya or those stay- 
ing in Thera. They moulded wax images and burnt them while 
they uttered the following imprecation, all of them, having 
come together, men and women, boys and girls. May he who 
does not abide by this agreement but transgresses it melt away 
and dissolve like the images, himself and his seed and his 
property. But for those who abide by the agreement, both those 
who sail to Libya and those who remain in Thera, may there be 
abundance and prosperity both for themselves and their des- 
cendants. 

2. Naupactus 1 

The colony at Naupactus is to be established on the following 
terms. The Hypocnemidian Locrian, when he becomes a 
Naupactian, shall, being a Naupactian, have the right, when 
present, to sacrifice and obtain a share of the sacrifice, in the 
places where a stranger is permitted by sacred law, if he so 
wish. 2 If he so wish he shall make offerings and receive a share 
both in the sacrifices of the people and those of the societies, he 
and his family for ever. The colonists of the Hypocnemidian 
Locrians shall not pay tax among the Hypocnemidian Locrians 
until one of them becomes again a Hypocnemidian Locrian. If 
the colonist wishes to return, it shall be allowed without pay- 
ment of fees 3 so long as he leaves for the household 4 a grown son 
or brother. If the Hypocnemidian Locrians are driven out of 
Naupactus by force, they shall be permitted to return, each to 
his previous home, without entry fees. They shall pay no tax 
except in common with the West Locrians. 

1 Translations of this text and commentaries which I have consulted with 
profit in preparing my version are those of Meister,5^r. d. sacks. GeselL d, Wiss. 
zu Leipzig, Phil. Hist. Klasse, 1895, 272 ff, Tod 24, and Buck, The Greek 
Dialects, (Chicago 1955) 250 ff. 

2 On the difficulties of punctuation and interpretation in this sentence see 
above pp. 49 if. 

3 The word everrJQia only occurs here; on its possible meanings see above 
p. 52 n. i. 

4 I translate ra ev tai lariat according to Meister's interpretation, who 
sees the rd as an accusative of respect meaning 'with regard to' or the like. 
Gf. also Tod p. 34. 



APPENDIX II 227 

1. The colonists to Naupactus are to take an oath not to 
secede voluntarily from the Opuntians by any means or device 
whatever. If they wish it shall be permitted, thirty years after 
the swearing of the oath, for one hundred men from the 
Naupactians to administer the oath to the Opuntians, and the 
Opuntians to the Naupactians. 

2. Whoever of the colonists defaults in his tax payments in 
Naupactus shall be excluded from the Locrians until he pay his 
lawful dues to the Naupactians. 

3. If the colonist have no successors in his house, nor heir 
among the colonists in Naupactus, the next of kin among the 
Hypocnemidian Locrians shall inherit, wherever he may come 
from among the Locrians, 1 so long as he comes in person, 
whether man or boy, within three months. But otherwise the 
laws of the Naupactians shall be applied. 

4. If the colonist return from Naupactus to the Hypocne- 
midian Locrians he shall have it proclaimed in the market- 
place at Naupactus, and among the Hypocnemidian Locrians 
he shall have it announced in the market-place of his city of 
origin. 

5. Whenever a member of the Percothariae and Mysacheis 
himself becomes a Naupactian, his property in Naupactus shall 
also be subject to the laws of Naupactus. But his property 
among the Hypocnemidian Locrians shall be subject to the 
laws of the Hypocnemidian Locrians, as the laws of the Hypo- 
cnemidian Locrian city of each individual stand. But if one of 
the Percothariae and Mysacheis return under the laws relating 
to the colonists, he shall be subject to his own laws, each in his 
city. 

6. If the settler in Naupactus shall have brothers, as the law 
stands in each city of the Hypocnemidian Locrians, if the 
brother die, the colonist shall take possession of the property, 
that is shall possess his due share. 

7. The colonists to Naupactus shall have precedence in 
bringing suits before the judges; the Hypocnemidian Locrian 
shall bring suits and answer suits against himself* in Opus on the 

1 1 translate according to Meister's punctuation here in preference to 
Tod's, as it seems to me more in tune with the order of words, but certainty 
is not attainable. See above p. 54 n. 3. 

2 Here I prefer Buck's interpretation of Kara feog to Tod's ('so far as he is 
concerned'). 



228 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

same day. Those who are the magistrates of the year 1 shall appoint a 
prostates 2 for the colonist from the Locrians, and from the 
colonists for the Locrian. 

8. Whoever of the colonists to Naupactus leaves behind a 
father and leaves his property with his father, shall be allowed, 
when the father dies, to recover his share. 

9. Whoever shall violate these decisions by any means or 
device whatever, except after a decree both of the assembly of 
the Thousand at Opus and the assembly of the colonists at 
Naupactus, shall be outlawed and his property shall be confis- 
cated. The magistrate shall grant a trial to the accuser within 
thirty days, if thirty days of his magistracy are left. If he does 
not grant a trial to the accuser, he shall be outlawed and his 
property confiscated, his land together with his servants. They 
are to swear the oath prescribed by law. The votes are to be 
cast into an urn. And the statute for the Hypocnemidian 
Locrians is to be valid in the same way for the settlers from 
Chaleum with Antiphatas. 

3. Brea z 

The adjutants for the oikist shall make provision for the 
sacrifice*" in order to obtain favourable omens for 5 the colony, as 
they shall decide. Ten distributors of land shall be chosen, one 
from each tribe. These shall allot the land. Democlides shall 
establish the colony with full powers to the best of his ability. 
The sacred precincts that have been set apart are to be left as 
they are, but no further precincts are to be consecrated. The 
colony is to make an offering of a cow and panoply to the Great 
Panathenaea and a phallus to the Dionysia. If anyone attacks 

1 This phrase is a crux which cannot be certainly solved. I follow Tod and 
Buck, and give what seems to be the most probable meaning. 

2 On the exact meaning of this word see above p. 59 n. 4. 

3 Because the beginning of the text has been lost the meaning of the 
mutilated opening phrases is not clear enough for an informative translation. 
I therefore begin with the first complete sentence, line 3. Tod's remarks on 
the opening phrases (p. 89) are still valid in spite of later attempts to restore 
and interpret them. See above p. 60 n. i. 

4 This is a translation of Meritt's text (Hesperia X 1941, 319; also printed 
in Hill, Sources,* 6.55), but he offered it in full knowledge of its uncertainty, 
for the sake of example only. 

5 The force of vnsQ here is not quite clear, since c on behalf of or 'in the 
name of 'are equally possible, as Daux pointed out; see REG xlviii 1935, 63 
n.3. 



APPENDIX II 229 

the territory of the colonists, the cities are to bring help as 
quickly as possible according to the treaty which was made, 
when . . . was first secretary of the council, concerning the cities 
of the Thraceward Region. 

This decree is to be written on a stele and placed on the 
acropolis; the colonists are to provide the stele at their own 
cost. If anyone puts a motion to the vote contrary to the stele, or 
speaks against it as a public orator, or attempts to persuade 
others to rescind or annul in any way any of the provisions 
decreed, he shall be deprived of civil rights together with his 
sons and his property shall be confiscated, and one tenth shall 
go to the goddess, unless the colonists themselves make some 
request on their own behalf. 1 

Those in the army who are enrolled as additional colonists 
shall settle at Brea within thirty days of their arrival in Athens. 
The colonial expedition is to set off within thirty days, and 
Aeschines shall accompany it and pay the expenses. 

Phantocles proposed: Concerning the colony to Brea, let it be 
as Democlides proposed, but the prytaneis of the Erechtheid 
tribe shall introduce Phantocles to the council in its first sitting. 
The colonists to Brea shall be from the Thetes and Zeugitae. 

1 The restored words neql acp&v are uncertain. 



APPENDIX III 

THE FORM OF THE 
NAUPAGTUS FOUNDATION DECREE 

IT was noted in Chapter IV 1 that in the Naupactus founda- 
tion decree the first paragraph (i-n) is without a number 
and contains several provisions. All the subsequent paragraphs 
are numbered and each contains strictly one provision only. 
Why does the numbering not begin at the beginning, and does 
the distinction reflect significant differences between the num- 
bered and unnumbered provisions? 

To dismiss the distinction as a matter of chance seems un- 
justified. It is hardly likely that the idea of numbering occurred 
to the inscriber after four provisions were already cut, or that 
such an illogical formal arrangement would have persisted in a 
copy, which is what we have. 2 Nor can the arrangement be ex- 
plained, as by Meyer, 3 by the analogy of the Corpus luris, 
where the second paragraph receives the number i, the first, 
the principium, remaining unnumbered. For, as Meister re- 
marked (301), this explanation would only be valid if the pre- 
liminary section consisted of a single provision. 

But Meister's own subtle and complicated explanation (301 f) 
is also open to objection. He suggested that the inscription 
contains not one but two decrees. The first contained general 
conditions which had to be passed before the colony could be 
decreed by the Hypocnemidian Locrians, or the colonists enrol 
themselves. The second began with the act by which the 
colonists completely committed themselves, the oath not to 
secede, after which the Thousand of Opus 4 could conclude a 
treaty with the colonists, of which the numbered part of the in- 
scription is the record. So he saw a chronological order in the 
decree: first an announcement of general provisions, then the 

1 See Chapter IV also for publications of the inscription and commen- 
taries. 

2 This is inferred from lines 46 f and the inscription's provenance; see Tod 
1 P- 33- 

3 Fomhungen zur alien Geschichte I 296. 4 Gf. line 39. 

230 



APPENDIX III 231 

enrolment of the colonists and their oath, then further provi- 
sions based on a treaty between the colonists and the Thousand 
of Opus. His main argument for this lay in his opinion that the 
first numbered paragraph (n), "Evogpov rolq &rufolpo% & 
NavnaKTov ^ 'rtoaraftsv, must describe an act already accom- 
plished. Taking the view that it is impossible to understand the 
imperative efyev, he supplied sari, and translated c the colonists 
are bound by oath 5 , which he took to show that the oath had 
already been sworn. 

However, this concept of an oath and enrolment which 
changed the status of the colonists regarding the mother city is 
not justified by the decree. There is no difference in the char- 
acter of the provisions of the first paragraph and the subsequent 
ones in this respect: both are equally binding on the colonists. If 
the first could be passed without an oath of the colonists, why 
not the subsequent ones? Furthermore, the whole tone of the 
decree makes the concept of a treaty untenable. It shows 
throughout conditions imposed on the colonists. The analogy of 
the Brea decree 1 seems admissible here; the provision (26-9) for 
recruits there shows that detailed conditions could be laid down 
before some of the colonists had enrolled themselves. They do 
not form a body with which a treaty could be made. 

Formal support for Meister's assumption of a break in the 
decree is also lacking, since all the provisions follow naturally on 
the first words: *Ev Navnaxrov na r&vde YcwifoiKia. Only, there- 
fore, if his contention is inescapable that scm must be supplied in 
line 1 1, is there any reason for assuming that the first numbered 
paragraph begins a new decree. His view did not convince the 
compilers of Liddell & Scott (s.v. $voQmq), who supply efyev. 
And if sort, is understood, the sentence differs not only from all 
the preceding sentences, but also from all those that follow. If 
this phrase describes a past act and what follows is a new decree, 
how is one to construe the infinitives of the remaining clauses? 
egeijuev (12), to mention only the first, becomes grammatically 
inexplicable. If, however, all the infinitives depend, as seems 
natural, on the first words of the decree, then the intrusive 
statement of fact becomes impossible. Thus Meister's explan- 
ation of the paragraphing problem by postulating two decrees 
is to be rejected. 

1 Tod 44. 



COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

If there is significance in the irregular form it must lie in a 
difference between the provisions of the first part and those of 
the numbered sections. And a difference has been generally 
recognized. The first paragraph has been thought to contain 
'dispositions generates', the rest 'dispositions particulieres 3 . 1 
Meister (301) accepted this distinction: c dieser Unterschied ist 
ganz unverkennbar'. To establish it we need only consider the 
two kinds of arrangements which occur in both the unnumbered 
and numbered parts. 

Taxes or tribute are dealt with in lines 4-6, 10 f, and (B) 
14-16. In the first two places the colonist's tax liability regard- 
ing his old community and his new is established,, 2 the third is 
concerned with possible tax-defaulting in Naupactus. Clearly 
this last has a less general and fundamental significance than the 
two sections in the unnumbered part. Arrangements for the 
return of colonists are made in lines 6~io and (A) 19-22. In the 
first the principles about return are established entire, the 
second lays down the procedure to be followed by the returning 
colonist. A similar inference may be drawn from the fact that 
the religious provision occurs in the first, unnumbered, part. For 
this would clearly be a matter of general importance. We may, 
therefore, conclude that the distinction in form was inten- 
tionally made in order to express a real difference in the char- 
acter of the provisions: those of a general character and greatest 
importance were placed in the first section. 

1 The words are those of the editors of the Recueil des inscriptions iuridiques 
grecques 187. Their further suggestion (ibid.) that the unnumbered part is a 
kind of synopsis, which the numbered provisions fill out, gives, however, a 
false picture. Where, to take one obvious example, is there any reference to 
religion after lines 1-4? 

2 For full discussion see Chapter IV. 



APPENDIX IV 
CORINTH AND MEGARA 

E earliest recorded instance of Corinth's colonial relation- 
JL ships, if the sources 1 may be trusted, concerns Megara. The 
account given is that the Megarians were Corinthian colonists 
and in such a dependent position that when a Bacchiad died 
men and women from Megara had to go to Corinth to mourn 
him. They decided to revolt, stoned envoys from Corinth who 
came to warn them to desist, and finally won a battle against the 
Corinthians. 

The sources are inferior and their indication of date is 
limited to the implication that the events took place during the 
Bacchiad rule at Corinth, but Hammond 2 has made a good case, 
even if his arguments are of varying worth, for dating the events 
to the last quarter of the eighth century and connecting them 
with the war in which Orsippus of Megara distinguished him- 
self. 3 As a result of the war Megara lost territory to Corinth but 
won independence. Can it, however, be established that 
Megara counted as a colony of Corinth? The ancient sources 4 
give as founders either the Dorians generally, or the Corin- 
thians and Messenians, or the Corinthians alone, as in the 
accounts under discussion. This evidence makes it at least pos- 
sible that the Megarians could be regarded as colonists of 
Corinth, and the events described may therefore be a very early 
instance of a mother city's attempt to control a colony and the 
colony's war of independence. Even so, certain reservations 
must remain. It may be that Aristotle's Megarian Constitution* 
and even the Corinthian poet Eumelus 6 were the authorities on 

1 These are: Schol. Find. Mem. VII. 155; schol. Plato Euthydem. sgaE; 
schoL Aristophanes Frogs 443; Zenob. V.8 (for edition see above p. 32 n.5). 

2 BSA xlix 1954, 93 ff. 

3 See Hicks and Hill i with notes; cf. Pans. I.xliv.i and Hammond 97 f. 

4 Listed in RE s.v. Megara 180 f. 

5 See Halliday, Greek Questions of Plutarch, 92. 

6 As suggested by Hammond, 95. However, little certain is known of 
Eumelus and his eighth-century date is not beyond dispute; see Will, 
Korinthiaka 124 ff, though some of his arguments against the traditional date 
are to be rejected; see my article Bull. Inst. Class. Studies v 1958, 35. 

233 



234 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

which the extant accounts were based, but these accounts are 
very late and may be unreliable at least in their emphasis on 
Megara's position as a colony of Corinth. It is certain that 
Megara, lying next to Corinth and surrounded by Greek states, 
was no normal colony, so that Corinth's domination and the 
war should perhaps hardly be included in colonial relation- 
ships. 



I 



APPENDIX V 

THE ARGIVE DECREE 
ABOUT CNOSSUS AND TYLISSUS 

REPRODUCE here Vollgraff 's text of the two large fragments 
of the Argive decree about Cnossus and Tylissus. 1 



V 



rol na~ 

[get rov *A()ye[]ov, degpara de (p- 
[sQoaQo hot Kv]6\-ioi. nqo Tav~ 
[goyoviov? 6vs]v ev Tvfaaoi f- 

VEQuai?, ajji\vav de not di- 
AaiQai?.~\ anovdag vsor- 
iii riOsadai 

[vg, al] fji& awdo>col TOI 
[fc, awp]dM.adai de rav TQIT- 
10 [av ala\av TOQ ^Agyelot; rav yd- 
[$>ov ' xcu] rwag rov evfjL&veov 
dvajuevaQ ridetjueOa KCLL r- 
ov dva/^evdov ev^sveaq^ [JIB 6- 
eoBai, al jue owdonol roi nh- 
15 eOei, awfidhksaQai de rove; 
SH Tvhiao rdv ipdcf>ov rav rgi- 
rav alaav. al de [Ad%a yivoir- 

ju,e nagevrov rov aregov, an- 
ovddvg deado *v roi deo^evo- 

20 i nevre d^Qavg. al organza 
eva[ie(e]ev rdv yav rdv Kvo- 
h'ai>, [TvAiaiovs] ocpekev navr- 

1 ad eve t, [xdr ro dvvarov. alrov\ 
na@e%6v[ro hot Kvo\-toi rol~\- 

25 *A(yyslo[i$ KvoVol, rol d* *Aqy\~ 
slot rol[<; ev TvfaaoL airaoj]- 

1 For references and explanations of abbreviations used see Chapter VIII. 

235 



236 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 



al d[e K dnoarrikovn, oat]- 
l/j,ev rdv [argarrjav en OMOV]- 
30 . KBV Tvh[iaol nar ravrd. K d]- 
e ua fagOfolai 8fw dvo/tsv, d]- 
ndyea6a[i nal rdnokhovi fdg]- 
va. al K sv6[ei ri Kvoaiov ev]- 



VI 



tov %O[QQV ro]v 9 

[gvaiov rot Tvfaaloi ege/j,]ev 6AAecr6ai, nka[v\ r- 
[d [tegs ret Kvoaiov avvr]e^ovra ev<; nohv. V6r\i\ 

5 [ds KQ, m dvcr/j,evs]ov he/lo^eg ovvavyoreQoi, 6a[d]- 
\JAOI rov xar y\av to -cqirov fieQos e%ev ndvrov, r[o]~ 
[v de j^dr] Gdlaaav rd Vs^iaa &%&v ndvrov rdv ds [$] - 
[sx]drav tovg, Kvoaiovq &%sv, \-6ri ^e'Ao/^eg mi\y\- 
[d]i * rdv de yalvgov rd juev Kahh(i}arsla Ilvdods &Ji[d 

10 ysv uoivai a^oreQov^ rd <5' aUa roi\^AQet Kvoa]- 
ol avriBtyev xoivai afxporfyovs. eg[ayoydv d* I]- 
IASV Kvoaodsv SVQ Tvfaoov usx Tvfa[oo Kvoaovd}- 
e' a[l\ de negavde egdyoi, reUro }roaaa[nsQ \~oi Kv\- 
oGioi- rd <5' en Tvlwo egayeado \-6nv[( KQL %Q>ei. ro\- 

15 i Uoaeidavi roi ev 'Ivroi rov Kvoalo[v laQea 6v\- 
ev. rdi hegafc ev 'Egatoi Otiev fiov deAei[av d/j,(por]- 
e^ov[g K\oivai, dvev de TIQO faxiv6[iov] ........ 

. KQ . . . K ................................ 

20 ..................................... 

B ............. avovro ............ nq\a\- 

roftevlav ayev mrd ravr[d Kara ro ooypa} rd 
oreqov. ^e^ara de fte 'vnwaaxeaOo ho Kv6aio[<;] 
ev Tvfaaoi, ho de TvUaioQ ev Kvoaol ho %QI[O]- 
25 v. pe de xoQag dnord/Liveodai /^edare^ovQ ped* a[n]- 
avaav ayaiQiaQaL OQOL rag yds * h;6> o^og nal A- 
leroi mQra/tmov nal ro ro *A$%o re/tevog a[i] 
ho noraju,6$ nek AevuonoQov xdydOoia, \-di 



APPENDIX V 237 

QSL TOjupQtov, ual AaoQ. hi KQL rot, Ma%avel Brio/A- 
go sg TOVQ f&^euovTa TeAeovc; ofivq, KO! rdi h(e)@(u 

TO auekos fendaro didofnev TO dv^aroq. al ds av- 

flnkeovst; nofaes &K nol&^iov eAoiev %QSfj,ara^ 

Vonai avyyvolzv Voi Kvoaioi ual rol 'Aqysloi, 

Vovro sjnev. roi "Agei not m(pQodfa(u tov Kvoci- 
35 ov la^ia Ovev, (psQsv ds TO OK&koQ fsxdaTo. TOV *A- 

Q%OV TO TSfJiBVOQ 8%V TOV * AftdoVCLl ' TOIQ 

evia 7ta.Qe%ev TOVQ Kvooiovs, TOV$ d* ' 

TOL %OQOI. Iv Tvfaaot al na uahet ho Kvoaiot; ^ro- 

eayeav, \~6nea6at, Vonvi MOL deeTa^ uai yo TvMa- 

40 og, TOV Kvoaiov KCLTO, TavTa al de ps, dolsv %evi~ 
a, jSoAct enay&To QVTIOV ds%a GTaTSQov avTiua s- 
m Koa^o^ K&V Tvfacoi uaTa TavTa ho KVOGLOQ. 
ha GTaka eaoTa snl MsMvTa fiaadeoQ. afgerev- 
s AvxoTadat; \-vhlsvg. dkiaiai edoe TO.L TOV 

45 laQov a (fgeTeve) /So^dg ^^Vrocnrog AvKO<pQovtdas * 
Tol Tvhiaioi nol TCLV GTahav noiyqaipdvaBo Tads ' 
at TK; dcpiKVoiTo Tvfaalov SVQ "^4^yog, %ara TavTa 
acpiv &TO \-ameQ Kvoaiou;. 

TRANSLATION 1 

V 

Those from the Argives shall provide the victims and the 
Cnossians shall take the hides. Before the Taurophonion (?) 
shall be sacrificed in Tylissus a ram to ? and a ? . , . 

Neither shall make new treaties unless the assembly 2 so 
decides; and the Argives shall have the third share 3 of the 
votes. And if we make enemies of any of our friends, or friends 
of our enemies, we shall not do so unless it is agreed by the 
assembly; those from Tylissus shall have the third share of the 
votes. 

If a battle occurs with one of the allies absent, a truce may be 

1 Versions and commentaries which I have consulted with profit in 
preparing this translation are those of Vollgraff (see above p. 154), Tod (33) 
and Buck ( The Greek Dialects no. 85). Italics indicate words supplied. 

2 For this translation ofn^rjdog see below pp. 240 f, where the possibilities 
are discussed. 

3 For the meaning of alaa see below p. 240. 



238 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

made in case of need for five days. If an army invades the ter- 
ritory of Cnossus, the Tylissians shall bring help with all their 
strength as far as they can. The Cnossians shall provide food for 
the Argives at Cnossus, but the Argives for those at Tylissus. 
The army shall receive pay for thirty days; but if they send it 
away, the soldiers shall return to their homes. And the same con- 
ditions shall apply in Tylissus. When we sacrifice a ewe to Arthaia, 
we shall offer also a ram to Apollo. And if any Cnossian comes to 
Argos . . . 

VI 

The Tylissians may plunder the land of? ... except imparts 
belonging to the city of the Cnossians. And as to the booty 
which we win both together from the enemy ', in the division 
they (i.e. the Tylissians) shall have a third part of everything 
taken on land, but a half of everything taken on sea. And the 
Cnossians shall have a tithe of what we take in common. Of the 
spoils we shall, both together, offer the most fine to Delphi, but 
the rest we shall, both together, dedicate to Ares at Cnossus. 
There shall be freedom of export from Cnossus to Tylissus and 
from Tylissus to Cnossus. But if any Tylissian export beyond let 
him pay the same as the Cnossians. But goods from Tylissus may 
be exported wherever it is necessary ? Let the priest of the 
Cnossians sacrifice to Poseidon in lutos. We are to sacrifice 
both in common a heifer to Hera in the Heraeum; the sacrifice 
is to be before the Hyacinthia. . . . 

They shall keep the first day of the month alike according to 
the decree (?) of both. The Cnossian may not possess property 
in Tylissus, but the Tylissian who wishes may do so in Cnossus. 
Let neither cut off a part of (the other's) land, nor take away 
the whole. 

The frontiers of the land: the Mountain of Swine, and the 
Eagles, and the Artemisium, and the precinct of Archos, and 
the river, and towards Leucoporus and Agathoea where the 
rainwater flows, and Laos. When we sacrifice to Machaneus the 
sixty full-grown rams, we shall give to Hera too the leg of each 
victim. If several cities win booty from the enemy, as the 

1 Here Tod and Buck supply words meaning wish rather than need: %a 
Act (Buck), xa Mir) (Tod). I translate Vollgraff's supplement. 



APPENDIX V 239 

Cnossians and Argives jointly decide, so let it be. Let the priest 
of the Cnossians sacrifice to Ares and Aphrodite, and let him 
keep a leg of each victim. Archos shall keep the precinct in 
Acharne. The Cnossians shall provide hospitality for those who 
sacrifice, but the Argives for the choir. 1 If the Cnossians demand 
at Tylissus the despatch of an embassy, let it be sent for what- 
ever purpose 2 it is required, and if the Tylissian make a similar 
request, let the Cnossian grant it in the same way. But if they 
do not provide hospitality, the council shall immediately impose 
a fine of ten staters on the kosmoi, and the same rule shall apply 
to the Cnossian in Tylissus. This stele was erected when 
Melantas was king and Lykotadas of the tribe Hylleis was 
president. 

Decree of the assembly for sacred matters: Archistratos of the 
Lykophron phratry was president of the council. Let the Tylis- 
sians add to the stele the following: if any of the Tylissians 
arrive in Argos, let him receive the same treatment as the 
Cnossians. 

Kahrstedt has argued 3 that the Argive decree about Cnossus 
and Tylissus establishes a treaty between Argos and Cnossus 
only, Tylissus being merely a foreign possession of Argos. The 
key to this argument is the status of Tylissus. For since most of 
the provisions of the decree are expressly agreements between 
Cnossus and Tylissus, it can only be confined to Argos and 
Cnossus if Tylissus is not an independent state but, as Kahr- 
stedt proposes, a piece of Argive territory. Any evidence which 
shows Tylissus to be an independent state is, therefore, fatal to 
Kahrstedt' s hypothesis. 

The amendment (1.44 ff), by which Tylissians visiting 
Argos had the same rights as Cnossians, shows clearly that the 
two communities had the same status. Kahrstedt recognizes 
this (84), but as the amendment was passed a little later than 
the rest of the decree, he suggests that Tylissus had regained her 
independence in the intervening period. It seems somewhat 
improbable, if the decree was based on Tylissus' status as a 

1 Vollgraff offered a new punctuation here (Verhand. 76) which seems 
superior to the earlier version to be seen in Buck and Tod. 

2 To take \-6nvi in a local sense is unsatisfactory, as Vollgraff has shown, 
Verhand. 81. 

3 See above p. 157. 



24O COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

dependent possession of Argos, that its only recognition of a 
momentous change in that status should be a short amendment 
regulating the position of Tylissians visiting Argos. But there is 
no need to press the argument from the amendment. Within the 
document as it originally stood there are provisions which put 
Tylissus' independent status beyond doubt. 

Even if we ignore for the moment the provisions which are 
expressed without names, and which Kahrstedt (79) assumes to 
have referred to Cnossus and Argos, there are among the provi- 
sions where the Tylissians are expressly named several which 
suggest Tylissus' independence, and two which seem to prove it. 
The agreements about trade (VI. n ff), about help in war 
(V.ao ff), and about the provision ofgevia (VI. 40 ff), would all 
be normally understood to show that Tylissus stood, in prin- 
ciple, on the same footing as Cnossus; however, even if these 
could be regarded as conditions imposed by Argos on her sub- 
ject, such an explanation is impossible for the passages V.I5 ff 
and VI.sS ff. 

In the first of these the Tylissians are accorded one third of 
the votes in the nZfjdoi; when any questions about friends or 
enemies are to be decided. Vollgraff has shown 1 that the word 
nhfjdoQ must here mean the assembly of the allies to which dele- 
gates are sent, and this is strongly suggested by the actual words 
of the decree: avvfidMeadai de rovq IK TvMao rav yd<pov rdv 
rgfaav aloav^ Thus, whatever exact procedure lay behind this 
provision, 3 Tylissus clearly participated in the alliance as an 
independent state. This conclusion is avoided by Kahrstedt, 
who proposed to understand the words quite differently. 4 
fthfjOo/; is taken to mean the assembly in the several cities, alaa is 
understood as turn, 5 and the whole thought to provide that the 
Tylissian assembly should vote third in time. It is hard to see 
what meaning such a procedure could have, and the unusual 
translation of alaa is difficult to defend, 6 but it is unnecessary to 

1 Verhand. 21. 2 As Vollgraff noted, Verhand. 25. 

3 The chief difficulty is that we do not know the constituents of the nhfjQcx;. 
Without this essential knowledge only guesses can be made about the exact 
force of the provision; see Vollgraff, Verhand. 22. 

4 For his discussion of the whole passage, see 87 ff. 

5 See Kahrstedt 90. The translation of alaa as share or part is justified by 
Vollgraff in an exhaustive note, Verhand. 23. 

6 Gf. Vollgraff, Verhand. 25, who dismisses Kahrstedt's suggestions with 
the words 'cette solution fantaisiste'. 



APPENDIX V 241 

argue the matter further, since assemblies of the people with the 
power that this provision postulates did not exist in Crete at the 
time of the decree. 1 

The second passage (VI. 38 ff) provides for the summoning of 
embassies between Cnossus and Tylissus on terms of equality: 
ev TvMtioi at na xahsi ho Kv6(no<; ngsayeav, VsnsaQai \~6nvi m 
desrai' nai %o Tvhiaiot;, rov Kvoaiov Kara ravrd. Kahrstedt avoids 
the necessary assumption that Tylissus is an independent state 
by a totally different interpretation of the passage (75 ff). He 
argues that the passage means c if the Cnossians demand the 
rights of a stranger etc.' He maintains first that the normal 
interpretation is impossible because the singular of the ethnic 
cannot be used to designate the whole state. This is false, as 
Vollgraff shows. 2 Secondly, he defends his unusual translation 
of ngeayeav as if it were equivalent to evia by two supposed 
analogies from Cretan inscriptions. The word nQsiyrfCa (neuter 
plural) occurs in a Cretan agreement of the second century, 3 
and has been understood to mean gifts of honour, 4 but it seems 
very questionable to regard it as analogous to nQsayeav, which 
must be a feminine noun of the first declension, and for which 
the true Cretan analogy would seem to be nQsiyrjfa, meaning 
embassy and attested in an agreement between Lato and Olus. 5 
The second analogy proposed are the Cretan officials called 
nQsiyiaroi. These appear in Cretan inscriptions 6 and seem 
simply to be the elders; 7 they act, on one occasion, if the noapoi 
fail. 8 Kahrstedt notes this meaning. However, because they are 
dealing with foreigners in some of the instances where they 
occur, 9 he regards them as ngot-svoi. Kahrstedt thus attributes 
an unsupported meaning to the word nqeiyiotoi, in order to 
find an analogy for an unexampled meaning of the word 
nqsaysav. It may be added that xaZeco is not the natural word to 
express the meaning that he requires, and on his interpretation 
the phrase \-eneadat \-6mi m deerai becomes very difficult to 
understand. 

If the document contains an agreement between Argos and 
Cnossus only, the provisions in which an unnamed *we' or 

i See VollgrafF Verhand. 20 ff. 2 Verhand. 80; cf. Tod p. 62. 

3 1C 111.111.4.30. 4 See Liddell and Scott s.v. n^iyrfCa, nQsapetov. 

5 See 1C I.xvi.22; cf. Liddell & Scott s.v. nQeiyr}ia. 
E.g. 1C IV.So.i i ; 184.13. 7 Cf. Guarducci, 1C IV p. 267. 

8 /CIV.8o.ii. 9 As/CIV,8o 4 ii; 184.13, 



242 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

'both' form the subject should refer to Argos and Cnossus. This is 
Kahrstedt's contention and necessarily an important part of his 
case. The provisions in question immediately follow or precede 
others in which the partners in the agreements are expressly 
Cnossus and Tylissus. It is, therefore, natural in a consecutive 
reading of the document to understand the names Cnossus and 
Tylissus in the provisions where no name is given, and this has 
been the interpretation of the epigraphists who have published 
the document. 1 In view of this Kahrstedt's thesis can only be 
maintained if the individual provisions under discussion seem to 
suit Argos and Cnossus much better than Cnossus and Tylissus. 
The first of these provisions (VI. 4 ff) makes arrangements 
about the division of booty which e we take both together'. The 
expression is somewhat loose in detail, but the lines have been 
generally understood 2 to mean that Cnossus' partner took a 
third of the booty in land operations, and half in successes on 
sea. The general character of the provision would suggest that 
Tylissus was this partner, for such agreements about divisions of 
booty were regularly made between Cretan cities. 3 Further- 
more, the earlier provision (V.ao ff) for Tylissians 4 to help 
Cnossus strongly suggests that the war partners throughout 
were Cnossus and Tylissus. Finally, it would be surprising to 
find Argos the equal of Cnossus in sea power, but her inferior on 
land, 5 For in the Peloponnesian War Argive hoplites are im- 
portant, 6 her navy conspicuously absent. 7 Although the sug- 
gestion has been made that there were small contingents of 
Argive soldiers on Crete, 8 the above arguments seem to make it 

1 In addition to Vollgraff, see Hiller SylL* notes to 56; Tod I pp. 61-3; 
Guarducci 1C I p. 58. 

2 See Tod's translation, p. 61, and VollgrafFs translation and commentary, 
Verhand. ro, 43 ff. 

3 VollgrafF gives examples; see Verhand. 44. 

4 The name is restored, but the supplement seems certain. 

5 In such arrangements the booty was divided according to the military 
contribution; for examples which make this point expressly see VollgrafF, 
Verhand. 44. 

6 See Thuc. VILao.i; 26.1; 44.6, for her contributions as an ally in an 
overseas campaign. 

7 Gf. Thuc. V.56.2, where the Argives blame the Athenians for allowing 
the Spartans to send help to Epidaurus by sea. 

8 By^VollgrafF, Verhand. 32, in connection with his restorations in V.23-6. 
But neither the restorations nor their meaning are sufficiently certain to be 
called evidence. 



APPENDIX V 243 

much more probable that the provision concerns Cnossus and 
Tylissus than Cnossus and Argos. 

The next provision (VI. 9 ff) arranges for the offering to the 
gods by 'both in common 5 of the first fruits from the spoil. 
Kahrstedt argues (79) that, if one of the gods is Ares at Cnos- 
sus/ the Pythian, the other god to benefit, must be the god of a 
state with closer relations to Delphi than Cnossus. Tylissus, he 
adds, had no treasury at Delphi. But the fact that the Pythian 
receives the best of the spoil shows that he is honoured not as a 
god of one of the contracting states, but as a great international 
deity. For, since Cnossus received more than its partner in the 
division of the spoil, and since the tithe went to Cnossus, the 
Cnossian deity would be expected to be the better treated, if it 
were a question of giving the gods of the two contracting states 
their share. It may be added that Tylissus was presumably too 
small and unimportant to have a treasury at Delphi. There is, 
therefore, no reason to assume that Argos was one of the un- 
named 'both' in this provision. 

The sacrifices of 'both in common' (VI.i6 f) to Hera in the 
Heraeum (rai \-eqai sv *Eqaioi) raise the question whether this 
is Argive Hera. Vollgraff originally suggested 2 that a Cretan 
Hera was meant, and that ^E^aioi is the name of a month and 
specifies the time of the sacrifice. Although there are serious 
objections to this view, 3 and although Vollgraff himself has 
long since recognized 4 that the goddess named must be Hera of 
the famous Argive Heraeum, the effect of his earlier suggestion 
is still to be seen in more recent works of reference. 5 It should 
therefore be emphasized that 'Hera in (the) Heraeum' in an 
Argive decree cannot be other than the great Argive deity. 6 

1 The restoration is justified by Vollgraff, Verhand. 45 . 2 BCH 1913, 1 96 f. 

3 While it is true that a month of this name is attested at Olus (see 1C 
I.xvi.5.88) the name cannot refer to a month here for two reasons. Firstly, as 
Vollgraff noted (Mnemosyne xlii 1914, 90) the time indication is given by 
the next phrase, Ovsv de nqb faxt,v6[lov (17), and secondly, ev with the name 
of a month seems not to occur (I rely on the examples of the chronological 
uses of ev in Liddell and Scott s.v.). The normal expression is to give the 
name of the month in the genitive together with the word /tfjvog; e.g. Tod 
66.6 f, 1C l.xvi-3.2-4; 5.88. 

4 See Mnemosyne xlii 1914, 90; cf. Verhand. 51 f and n. 237. 

5 See especially Guarducci 1C I p. 58, but Tod also writes (I.p.Gi) 
'whether the famous Argive Heraeum or a Cretan temple is not clear 1 . 

6 For the antiquity and prestige of Hera at Argos see Waldstein, The Argive 
Heraeum, I 3 ff . 



244 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

It seems unlikely that Argos would arrange to make sacri- 
fices with Cnossus to her own great goddess. When the Athen- 
ians imposed sacrifices to Athenian gods on Brea and on 
Erythrae and other allies/ they did not arrange to join in the 
sacrifices themselves. It therefore seems unlikely in this provi- 
sion too that Argos was Cnossus' partner. 

It is arranged that both states should have the same first day 
of the month (VI. 21 f). Kahrstedt suggested (81) that this was 
to facilitate mutual celebrations in Cnossus and Argos, but it is 
not known that the many Greek calendars made attendance at 
Panhellenic festivals difficult to synchronize. It is neighbours 
with commercial relations who need to have the same first day 
of the month, which was the normal day for the settlement of 
debts. 2 

The final provision in which the names are not expressed 
(VI. 29 ff) arranges that c when we sacrifice to Machaneus the 
sixty full-grown rams, we shall give to Hera too the leg of each 
victim'. 3 The sacrifice to Machaneus, apparently a Cnossian 
deity, seems to be a practice already established, and the offer- 
ings of the legs to Hera an innovation. 4 It would be slightly sur- 
prising if the Argives had been participating in such a large 
offering to a Cnossian god, and more surprising that they should 
arrange for the first time for part of the offering to go to Hera. 
There is, on the other hand, nothing surprising in the provision 
if it refers to Cnossus and Tylissus. 

In none of these provisions is it more probable that the two 
partners were Argos and Cnossus. On the contrary, all are 
more intelligible if they refer to Cnossus and Tylissus, as a 
natural reading of the Greek suggests. It may therefore be 
assumed that when they were concerned in a provision the 
Argives were expressly named. 

If the phrases governed by an unspecified Sve' or 'both' are 
to be referred to Cnossus and Tylissus, and if Tylissus was an 
independent state at the time of the decree, Kahrstedt's thesis 
fails. The document cannot be regarded as an agreement be- 
tween Argos and Cnossus alone. 

1 See above Chapter IV. 

2 Cf. Aristophanes Clouds 113 ff; Vollgraff Verhand. 53. 

3 Gf. Vollgraff } s commentary, Verhand. 59. 

4 See Vollgraff 's long discussion, Verhand, 59 ff, especially 70. 



APPENDIX VI 
THE CITIZENS OF AMPHIPOLIS 

IN his account of Brasidas' capture of Amphlpolis Thucydides 
makes certain statements about the citizens of Amphipolis 
from which it might be deduced that the Athenian settlers had 
kept Athenian citizenship. The three crucial phrases all occur 
in the space of a dozen lines. First (IV. 105. 2) Brasidas pro- 
claimed that anyone : 'AjuqomoliTcov xal *A6r]valcov TO>V evovrcov 
could stay with possession of his belongings, or leave, taking his 
belongings, within five days. Secondly, the majority changed 
their mind when they heard this proclamation (106.1) 



re HO! fl@ct%v juev 'Adrjvaicov e/tnoltTevov, TO ds n 

IKTOV. 

Finally (ibid.), the proclamation was considered fair when 
compared with their fears 

ot jLcev *A8r)valoi dia TO dajuevoi dv e^sWelv, tfyovjusvoi OVK sv 6[jioiq> 
acpiai TO, dsiva elvai KO! a^a ov nqoods^o^svoi ^orjdsiav sv rd%si, 6 6s 

jiihoc, no^scoQ TS sv r& loco ov aTeQiaKo^evoi ncd 
. ddgav 



It would be very surprising if these Athenians, referred to 
three times in so short a space, were not the same people each 
time. HampPs discussion 1 is unsatisfactory, because he takes the 
Athenians of the first passage as temporary residents (5), while 
referring the second passage to permanent citizens of Amphi- 
polis (4) . His reason is a mistaken interpretation of the words 
TWV IVOVTCOV in the first passage. He finds these words more 
suitable to temporary residents than permanent citizens. This 
would be a valid interpretation if the words applied to the 
Athenians only, but an examination of the context reveals that 
they qualify both the Athenians and the Amphipolitans. The 

1 Klio xxxii 1939, 2-5. It is surprising to find HampPs treatment tacitly 
approved and his conclusion accepted by Westlake, Hermes xc 1962, 280. 

245 



246 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

contrast is between those who were inside the city and still free 
from Brasidas, and those over whom he had control outside. 1 

In discussing the questions who these Athenians were and 
what status they had in the colony, it is important to remember 
the circumstances of Amphipolis. It was only some thirteen 
years since the foundation, and there would probably be quite a 
number of temporary inhabitants from Athens, traders and the 
like, in the city. 2 It was also wartime, and civil strife in Greek 
cities was a familiar evil. Few Athenians would feel confident in 
a city under the protection of Sparta, even if they had been 
citizens of Amphipolis for thirteen years. 

The people in Amphipolis whom Thucydides could call 
Athenians must have been either the permanent settlers of 
Athenian origin, or the temporary residents from Athens, or 
both these groups. It seems unlikely that he could be referring 
to the permanent settlers only, for the temporary residents 
would be in the lead among those who were glad to leave of the 
third passage. The choice therefore lies between the temporary 
residents only and both groups together. 

The first passage, which distinguishes between the Athenians 
and the Amphipolitans, could clearly be interpreted as referring 
to temporary residents only, and so could the third passage 
which describes the Athenians as glad to leave. But the second 
passage seems to exclude the possibility that Thucydides only 
had temporary residents in mind. For the words aUcos rs KW, 
pQa%v ju,ev *A6r}vala)v e/inofarsvov, TO ds nXsov V/A/J,SMTOV lose their 
significance in the context if the Athenians referred to are 
merely the temporary residents, Thucydides is explaining why 
the majority decided to accept Brasidas 3 offer; it is because, 
compared with the majority of mixed origins, the Athenians 
were too few to be politically dominant. These Athenians can 
hardly have been temporary residents, since even if Athenians 
temporarily in Amphipolis had political rights, 3 Thucydides 
could scarcely contrast Athenians with TO nMov ^v^sinrov if 
this description embraced Athenian settlers who had left 

1 See Thuc. IV.ios.5 and 106.1, where the matter is emphasized. 

2 We may assume that Athenian trade with Amphipolis was not confined 
to the ship timber that Thucydides expressly mentions (IV. 108.1), but even 
if this were all, its importance suggests there would always be Athenian 
citizens in Amphipolis for commercial reasons. 

3 As, for example, Milesianfc in Olbia; see Chapter VI. 



APPENDIX VI 247 

Athens at most thirteen years earlier. Finally, though the word 
Bftnofarsva) should not necessarily be given so legal a meaning as 
c to hold civil rights in', 1 it is not likely that Thucydides would 
have chosen it had he been referring solely to temporary residents. 

By a process of elimination, therefore, it follows that Thu- 
cydides is referring to both temporary residents and permanent 
settlers of Athenian origin in the passages under discussion. At 
first sight this seems the most natural conclusion; Thucydides 
was an Athenian himself and would think of all those of 
Athenian origin as Athenians; but such a conclusion raises 
other questions. If these Athenians included permanent settlers 
of Athenian origin, then those settlers were distinguished from 
the * Apcpinokhctiv of the first passage, from TO nleov ^^einrov 
the second and from 6 a/Uog S^doQ of the third. The first of 
these is the most striking, so that the others, being mere reflec- 
tions of it, need not be considered separately. Do these distinc- 
tions imply that the Athenian settlers of Amphipolis had kept 
their Athenian citizenship? 

Examples have been adduced above which show that Greek 
writers used ethnics inconsistently; 2 for on any one occasion 
their choice of name could be influenced either by consider- 
ations of origin, or of locality, or of citizenship. On grounds of 
analogy, therefore, it does not necessarily follow from Thu- 
cydides' words that these Athenians were not legally Amphi- 
politans. And on the argument from plausibility such a conclu- 
sion seems highly improbable. For it is virtually impossible to 
believe that a colony could be established of which one section 
remained citizens of another city. Such discrimination would 
hardly have been endured by the settlers of non-Athenian 
origin, and could not be reconciled with the principle of 
equality, which was regularly found in Greek colonial enter- 
prises. 3 

1 This is the translation in Liddell and Scott s.v. Betant is probably 
nearer with his plain inhabitare; see Lexicon Thucydideum s.v. There is only one 
other place where Thucydides uses the word, at IV. 103.4, where it describes 
the settlers in Amphipolis of Argilian origin, and there it need not imply 
citizen rights. The only other approximately contemporary occurrence of 
the word is in Isocrates (V.s) where it should probably be translated 
'inhabitants' (anoiKiai ahivsq . . . anokwHxaoi rovg s^nohrevQsvrag) . But 
though the word may not carry implications about civil rights, it must be 
at least allowed the sense 'to live in'. 

2 See Chapter VI. 3 See Chapter IV. 



248 COLONY AND MOTHER CITY 

If this argument is sound, we must accept that Thucydides 
could call Athenians and distinguish from Amphipolitans people 
who were citizens of Amphipolis. This seems a hard conclusion, 
but the circumstances of the time, which we have already 
emphasized, make it intelligible. In Thucydides' mind the im- 
portant distinction was between those who were by origin con- 
nected to Athens, and so on the Athenian side in the crisis 
caused by Brasidas, and the greater number whose origin and 
loyalty were elsewhere. 1 Distinctions of legal citizenship were 
by comparison insignificant, and it would have blurred the im- 
portant division of the moment if he had tried to express them. 
Here we have had to use periphrases like 'the settlers of 
Athenian origin', but it is not surprising that the historian chose 
to call them plainly Athenians. 

It could still be argued that the last passage, especially the 
phrase <M to cLapavoi dv egeWelv must show that these 'Athen- 
ians' knew that they would return to citizen rights at Athens. 
For glad though they may have been to avoid the possible 
attacks of the pro-Spartan party, Brasidas' proclamation had 
ostensibly assured them of security in their rights at Amphi- 
polis. It does not necessarily follow, however, that they were at 
that time citizens of Athens. We have already seen that some 
right of return to the metropolis was regularly conceded to 
colonists, 2 and fugitives were also often accorded a friendly 
reception. 3 In wartime refugees from a colony captured by the 
enemy, especially a colony not long established, could expect to 
be received into the metropolis. 

We may conclude that Thucydides' account of the events in 
Amphipolis on the arrival of Brasidas does not show that the 
settlers of Athenian origin legally possessed a special status in 
the city. 

1 Westlake has shown (Hermes xc 1962, 276 ff) that Thucydides' account is 
apologetic and exaggerates the inconstancy of the Amphipolitans. This may 
also account for the distinction that he chooses to emphasize. 

2 See Chapters IV and VI. 

3 See Chapter VI. 



INDEX 



Acamas, 204 
Acanthus, 16 
Acarnanians, 133, 138-40 
Achaea, 1 58 f 
Acharne, 239 
Acrae, 92, 94 
Acragas, 20 f, 65, 162 
Adria, 6 
Adriatic,, 6, 43, 192, 208 f 

Athenian colony in, 40, 44 
Aegina, Aeginetans, 122, 164, 181 

Athenian settlement, 172-4, 182 f, 
189, 191 

and Epidaurus, 90 f 
Aegospotami, n 
deLvavrat, 98 

Aeolian colonization, i f 
aesthetic connections, see artistic 
Aethiops, 220 
Aetolians, 42 
Agathoea, 238 
Ajax, son of Oeleus, 1 16 n. 
Aieratos, 74-6, 79, 96, 117 
Akte, i75n. 
Alalia, 1 1 1 f 
Alcibiades, 199 
Alcidas, 38 

Alexander, 64 n., 80 n., 99 
Al Mina, 5 
Ambracia, Ambraciots, 30, 137- 

141 
coins, 121 f, 125, 127, 130, 149 

and Corinth, 118, 132 f, 135 f, 

138-40, 200 
Arneinocles, 222 n. 
Amisus, 109 n. 
Amphictyonies, 216 
Amphilochians, 138 f 
Amphipolis, 16, 34, 37, 173 n., 207 

and Athens, 37 f, 86, 199-201, 
203-6, 245-8 

citizenship, Appendix VI, 245-8 

constitution, 37, 206 

foundation, 37, 82, 197 

oikist(s), 34 f, 37 f, 204 
Amyntas, 203 



Anactorium, 30, 118, 138, 141 

coins, 121 f, 125, 132 

and Corcyra, 120, 129, I34f, 149 

and Corinth, 120, I28f, 132-5, 
140, 148 

shared colony of Corcyra and 

Corinth, 31, 129, 147 
Anaia, 6 n. 
Anaxilas, 17-19 
Androdamas, 18, 76 
Andros, Andrians, 9, 16, 173 
Antalcidas, 1 84 n. 
Antidorus, 176 
Antimnestus, 17 
Antiochus (of Syracuse), 221 n. 
Antiphatas, 48, 228 
Antiphemus, 19, 21, 22 n., 29 n. 
Aphrodite, 160, 239 - 
Apollo, 20, 26, 29, 225, 238, 243 

of Didyma, 108, 161 
Apollonia in Illyria, 130-2, 141, 149 

and Corcyra, 119, 130, 134, 149 

and Corinth, 119, isof, 134, 



shared colony of Corcyra and 

Corinth, 31, 147 
Arcadia, 162 n. 
Arcesilaus III, 112 
Archias, 7 n., 30 n., 220 
Archidamian War, 42, 133, 214 
Archilochus, 71 f, 76, 81 
Archistratos, 239 
Archos, 238 f 
Ares, 1 60, 238 f, 243 
Argilus, Argilians, 16, 206, 247 n. 
Argolid, 164 
Argos, Argive, 12, 95, 135, 156, 160, 

207, 242 
and Cnossus, Ch. VIII, 154-65, 

212, 240-4 
decree concerning Cnossus and 

Tylissus, 78, Ch. VIII, 154-65. 

214, Appendix V, 235-44 
and Tylissus, Ch. VIII, 154-65, 

212, 239 f 
Aristeus, 140 



249 



250 



INDEX 



Aristophanes, 11 
Aristotle, 3, 16, 101, iisf 
Artemis, 175 n. 
Artemisium, 238 

Battle of, 169, 176 
Arthaia, 238 
artistic connections, 13 
AsclepiuSj 164 
Ascra, no 

Astypalaea, 12 n., 163 f 
asylw,, 164 
Atalante, 128 
ateleia, 87, 164 
Athena, 162, 193 

Lindia, 20 f, 161 f, 211 
Athenian allies, 34, 37, 96, 105, 
io6n., 120, 134, 137 f, 177? 
182 f, 192 f, 201 

lawsuits, 91 

religious obligations, 62 f, 190, 

244 

Athenian Currency Decree, 123 
Athenian Empire (see also Delian 
League), 34, 63, 86, 89 f, 106, 
123, 134, 177* 1 80, 193 

Second Athenian Empire, 64 n. 
Athenodorus, 168 

Athens, Athenian, 26, 33, 35, 37 f, 
76, 95 n., 118, 128, 141 n., 
14611., 191, 229, 242 n. 

and Aegina, i7pf, 182 

and Amphipolis, 37!", 86, 199- 
201, 203-6, 245-8 

and Anactorium, 133 

assembly, 156 n., 172 

and Brea, 34 f, 42, 60-2, 197 f 

and the Bottiaeans, 197 f 

and the Ghalcidians, 197 

and the Chersonese, 32, 193-7 

coins, 18, 122 f 

colonization, 12, 39, 44, 152, Ch. 
IX, 166-210 

colony in Adriatic, 40, 44 

and Corinth, 42 

and Eretria, 169 

and Hestiaea, 171, 182 

and Imbros, 174, 182, 184^ 188 

and Ionia, 2, n, 63, 183, 213, 217 

and Lemnos, i76f, 179, 182, 
184 f, i88f, 196 

and Melos, 11, 172, 174 

and Miletus, 105 

and Molycrium, 137 



and Naupactus, 41, 137 n. 

and Neapolis (Thasian colony), 

78, 84 f, 87 
offerings to Athenian gods, 62 f, 

161, 190, 244 
and Persia, r 76 
and Plataea, 127, 151 n., 174 
and Potidaea, 136-8, 140, 177, 

190 f 

and Samos, 174, 197 
and Sigeum, 32-4, 192 f 
and Sparta, 37, 185, 213 f 
and Syracuse, 144 
and Thasos, 76, 80 n., 81 f, 89 
andThurii, 35 f, ig8f 
western interests, 36, 46 n. 
Attica, 79 n., 167, 176, 196, 205 
Attic pottery, 13 

Babylonian Chronicle, 32 n. 

Bacchiads, in, 147, 211, 220, 233 

'Battle of the Champions', 95 

Battus, 29, 41 n., 44, 225 

Battus Eudaimon, 212 

Battus III, 212 

Beroea, 34 n. 

Bisaltai, 173 n. 

Black Corcyra, 40, 42 f, 44 n., 59, 

64 f 
Black Sea (see also Pontus), 9, 109, 

209 

Bocchoris, 221 n. 
Boeotia, Boeotians, 39, lion., 126, 

206 f 

Boeotian League, 126 f 
Bottiaeans, 197 f 
Brasidas, 16, 29 n. 3 37 f, 199, 206, 

245 f, 248 
Brea, 41 f, 61, 66 f, 173 n. 

and Athens, 62, 161, 190 n., 197 f, 

244 
foundation decree, 34 f, 37, 40, 

44> 54> 59-64> 6 7> i9 8 > 224 n., 

228?, 231 

oikist, 34 f, 61, 67, 228 f 
Byzantium, Byzantians, 15 n., 79 n. 

Calaurian League, 91 n,, 216 
calendar, 14, 83 n., 244 
Callidamas, 50 
Callistratus, 88 
Camarina, 92-4, 104, 143 
Cardia, Cardians, 196, I97n. 



INDEX 



251 



Carthaginians, 27, 112, 14411. 
Casmenae, 92, 94, 1 14 n. 
Catane, 18, 221 
Caulonia, 159 
Cephisophon, 79-81 
Cerasus, 201, 209 
Chaeronea, Battle of; 80 
Chalcidians in Thrace, i8 3 73, 76 
Ghalcidian Ware, 18 n. 
Chalcidice, 34 n. 
Chalcis, Chalcidian, 16, 18, 76, 
104 f, 113, 221 

and Athens, 54, 197 

cleruchy, 169, 177, 190 n., 191 

and Corinth, 220-2 

and Eretria, 73, 222 

and Rhegium, 17-19 
Chalcis in Aetolia, 1 19 122, 141, 152 
Ghaleum, 48 f, 228 
Gharondas, 18 
Ghersicrates, 30 n., 220 
Chersonese (Thracian), 7, 333 76, 
ifSf, 194 

and Athens, 32, 193-7 

cleruchy, 167, 169, 178!", 190, 196 
Chios, 38 
Cimolians, 135 
Cimon, 185, 196 
citizenship, 76, in, 117, 174, 191 

Athens and her colonies, 1 765 1 89, 
i93-5> 199, 245-8 

Corinth and her colonies, 133 f, 
139 f, 152 

Miletus and her colonies, Ch. VI, 
98-117 

mutual, 64, 66, 75, 97, Ch. VI, 
98-117, 216 

Olbia, 99, 101, 103, 107 

Selinus, 113 

Thasos, 87 
Cius, 103, 1 08 n. 
Gleomenes, 104 
Cleon, 9 
cleruch, cleruchy, 4, 166-92, 209 f 

Aegina, 173, 182 

Andros, 173 

Chalcis, 169, 177, 190 n,, 191 

Chersonese, 167, 169, i78f, 190, 
196 

compared with other colonies, 
. 189, 191 

distinguished from apoikia, 1 68-70, 
184, 189 



as garrison, 190 

Hestiaea, 172, 182, 189 

Imbros, 174, 183 

Lemnos, 174, 178-80, 182 f, i86f 

Lesbos, 170, 179, 181 

Melos, 174, 184, 191 

military service, 190 

offerings to Athenian gods, 190 

oikists of, 185 

residence of, i8of, 189 

Scyros, 1 74, 1 85 f 

taxes of, 189 

and tribute, 177, 193 n. 
Cnemus, 132 
Cnidus, Cnidians, 20, 43, 112 

Battle of, 184 n. 
Cnossus, 156 n., 159 

Argive decree about Cnossus and 
Tylissus, 78, 214, Appendix V, 

235"44 
and Argos, Ch. VIII, 154-65, 

212, 240-4 
and Tylissus, Ch. VIII, 154-65, 

212, 239-41, 243 f 
coinage, coins, 14, 88, 122-5, I2 7 n * 
of Aegina, 122 
of Ambracia, 121 f, 125, 127, 130, 

J 49 

of Anactorium, 121 f, 125, 132 
ofApollonia in Illyria, I3of, 

H9 

of Athens, 18, I22f 
of Boeotian League, i26f 
of Corcyra, 125, 130, i48f 
of Corcyra's colonies, 149, 151 
of Corinth, 88 n., 120-3, 125, 130, 

148 f 
of Corinthian colonies, 88 n., 119, 

12 1-3, 125-8, 130, 141, 151 
of Baton /Crenides, 88 
of Dicaea, 125 
ofEpidamnus, 130 f, 149 
of Eretria, 125 
of Gela, 124 
of Leontini, 124 
of Leucas, 121 f, 125, 149 
ofPerinthus, 125 n. 
of Posidonia, 91, 114 
of Samos, 1 25 n. 
of Sybaris, 114 
of Syracuse, i24f, 148 
of Thasos, 8on. 5 88 n. 
of Thebes, 126 



252 



INDEX 



colonial empires (see also imperial 
colonization), 12, 91 f, Ch. VII, 

commerce, commercial relations 
(see also trade), 13 f, 30, 82, 96, 
98, 1 06, 122 f, 132, 143, 244 

Gonon, 95 n., 96 n. 

continuity of relations, 2 f 

Gorcyra, Gorcyrean, 90, 105, 118, 

120, 129, 143 f, 148 f, 218, 223 

and Anactorium, 120, 129, 



and Apollonia in Illyria, 119, 130, 

i34> H9 

coins, 125, 130, I48f 
and her colonies, 149-51 
and Corinth, 8, 10, 13, 27, 30 f, 

43, 66, 86, in, 1 1 8, 129-36, 

141-50, 152 f, 215 n. 
Corinth's criticisms of, 140 f, 149, 

153, 160, 216 

date of foundation, 219-21 
and Epidamnus, 25, 134, 147, 

149-51, 211 

Eretrian colonists, no, 221 f 
andLeucas, 129 f, 134, 147, 149 
oikist, 30, 218, 220, 223 
reception of Bacchiad exiles, in, 

147, 211 
shared colonies with Corinth, 17, 

31, 119, 129-35, 141, 147, 149 
Corinth, Corinthian, 14, 42, 105, 

in, 118, 126 f, 135, 152, 190 f, 

200, 212, 221 

and Ambracia, 118, 132 f, 135 f, 

138-40, 200 
and Anactorium, 120, 128 f, 132- 

135, 140, 148 
and Apollonia in Illyria, 119, 

130 f, 134, 149 
and Chalcis, 220-2 
coins, 88 n., 120-3, I2 5> I 33 

148 f 
colonial empire, Gh. VII, 1 18-42, 

148 f 
and Corcyra, 8, 10, 13, 27, 30 f, 

43, 66, 86, in, 1 1 8, 129-36, 

141-50, 152 f, 215 n. 
criticisms of Corcyra, 140 f, 149, 

153, 160, 216 
and Epidamnus, 25, 27, 31, 46, 

54> 59> 65, 134, 147, 149-51, 



and Leucas, 118, 129^ 132-6, 

140, 144, 147 
and Megara, 1 18 n., 222, Appen- 

dix IV, 233 f 
oikists, 93 n., 2ii 
and Potidaea, 10, ugf, 135-7, 

140, 142, 200, 209 
shared colonies with Corcyra, 1 7, 



and Syracuse, 13, 118, 142-9 

tyrants' colonization, 12, 30-4, 
142, 2ii 

western aims, 5, Appendix I, 218- 

223 

Corinthian Gulf, 119 
Corinthian pottery, 218, 221 n. 
Coronea, Battle of, 126 
Corpus luris, 230 
Cotyora, 201-3, 209, 214 
Grenides (Baton), 88, 89 n. 
Crete, Cretan, 10, 12, 16, 19-21, 

155 f, 1 60, 164, 183, 241 f 
Croesus, 6, 32 n. 
Croton, 114, 159, 219 
cults, 14 f, 51, 101, 156 n. 
Gumae, 16, 115, 222 
Cyme (Aeolian), 16, no 
Cyprus, 112 

Cypselus, Cypselids, 30 f, in, 119, 
129, 132 n., 148, 211 

chronology, 32 n., 118 n. 
Cyrene, 16, 26, 42, 52, 61, 112, 225 

foundation, 8, 29, 41 

foundation decree, 27, 29 f, 40 f, 
44> 53 ft 59~ 62 > 6 4> 66f > IIO > 

211 f, 224-6 

oikist, 29, 44, 61, 225 

and Thera, 16, 27-9, 41, 53, 62, 

64, 73, 'i i if, 212 
Cyrus the Great, 105 
Gythera, 10, 95 f, 128, 190 
Gyzicus, 107-9, 117 

Daedalus, 19 

Damagon, 38 

Darius III, 99 n. 

Dascylium, 107 

Daton, see Crenides 

defence, of colony by mother city, 

. 62, 67, 73 f 
Deinomenes, 162 

Delian League (see also Athenian 
Empire), 11, 177, 192, 2i6f 



INDEX 



253 



Delphi, 6, 17, 25-7, 29 f, 41 n., 78, 
94, 150, 196, 198, 212, 238, 

243 

Demarchus, 94 
Democlides, 35, 228 f 
Demonax, 16, 212 
Demosthenes (general), 139, 198 
Demoteles, 74 
Dicaea, 125 
Didyma, 108, 161 
Dionysia, 62, 228 
Dionysius I, 43, 116, 192, 208 f 

the Younger, 1 1 6 
distance, effect of, 90-6, 117, 137^ 

152, 190-2, 210 f, 215 
Dolopians i84f 
Dorians i, 105, 156, 164, 182 n., 

213* 233 

Dorieus, 8, 25, 29, 220 
Doris, 213 

East Greek pottery, 98 

Eastern Locris, see Hypocnemidian 

Locris, Opus 
Echiades, 30 
eyxrrjms, 205 
Egypt, 74 
Eion, 9 

eisphora, 172, 189 
Elaious, 33 n. 
Eleusis, 103 

empire (s), see colonial empires, im- 
perial colonization 
emporion, emporia, (see also trading 

^ posts), 4f, 109 

enlistment, of settlers, see recruit- 
ment 

Entimus, 19, 21 
Epidamnus, 26 f, 78, 131, 211 
coins, i3of, 149 
and Gorcyra, 25, 134, 147, 149- 

151, 211 
and Corinth, 25, 27, 31, 46, 54, 

59, 65, 134, 147, 149-51, 153 
dispute over, 66, 130, 132, 134, 

147-50, 153 
foundation, 30 f, 147 
Epidaurus, 12 n., 90 f, 163 f, 242 n. 
oi (see also governors) , 
136 f, 142, 200 

14 n. 
Epirus, 208 
entauonoi, 200 



Epizephyrian Locri, 7, 40, 1 15 f 
and her colonies, 86, 94 f, 214 

Eponphes, 1 73 f 

Equal rights, in colonies, 46, 58 f, 
67, 247 

Eretria, 73 n., 1 10, 125, 169, 190, 221 f 

Erythrae, 62 f, 244 

ethnics, 121, 124, 126, 241 

significance, 6 n., 103-5, 1 39 n -> 

rf7~9> i?9 *9 6 > 247 

Etruria, Etruscans, 6, 13, 112 

Euagoras, 30 

Euainetos, 180 f 

Euboea, 38, 146 n., 169, 182 

Eucles, 199 f 

Eumelus, 233 

Eurymedon (general) , 198 

Euthymus, 104 

exiles, reception of (see also fugi- 
tives), 111-13, 147, 211 

family connections, 15, 30, 68, 145 

n., 150 f 
financial obligations (see also taxes, 

tribute), 81-3, 190, 200 f, 206 
first generation settlers, 104 f 
foundation decrees, 7 n., 27 f, Gh. 

IV, 40-68, no, 1 66, 215 
Brea, 34 f, 37, 40, 44, 54, 59-64, 

67, 198, 224 n., 228 f, 231 
Gyrene, 27, 29 f, 40 f, 44, 53 f, 
59-62, 64, 66 f, 1 10, 21 1 f, 224-6 
Naupactus, 40, 42, 44-62, 64 f, 
67 f, 101 f, 117, 190, 214, 224, 
226-8, Appendix III, 230-2 
provisions about changes and 

transgressors, 60 f, 63, 68 
provisions about inheritance, 

49 n., 52, 54-9, 65-67 
'friendship', of colony and mother 

city, 107-9 

fugitives (see also exiles), 7 
reception of, 111-15, 248 

Galepsus, 9, 82, 89 
Gamoroi, 92, 113 n., ii4n. 
garrisons, 95 f, 136 f, 185, 190 
Gela, Geloans, 10, 17, 19-22, 65, 93, 

124, 143, 183 
coins, 124 
dedications to Athena Lindia, 

161 f, 211 
oikists, 19, 21 f, 29 n. 



254 



INDEX 



Gelon, 10411.5 124, 162 
Geometric pottery, 221 n. 
Geomoroi, 74 
ysobvoftoi, (see also land allotment), 

35, 37 n., 59 
Glaukos, 72 
Gorges, 30 
governors, In colonies from mother 

cities (see also emdrjjMOVQyot, 

harmosts), 95 f, 136 f, 142, 

202 f, 206-8 
Athenian, 200 
Great Panathenaea, 62, 228 
Gyges, 6 
Gylax, 130 
Gylippus, 146 n., 198 

Hadrian, 96 n. 

Hagespippidas, 39 

Hagnon, 37 f, 204 

Haliartus, 206 f 

Halicarnassus, 104 

harmosts, 96 n., 200 n., 202 f, 207 

Harpagus, in 



hegemony, of mother city (see also Ischia, 219 



Homer, 29 
Hyacinthia, 159, 238 
HyUeis, 239 ^ 

Hypocnemidian Locris, Locrians 
(see also Opus), 40, 47-9, 52, 
55 f, 58 f, 68, 128,226-8,230 
and Naupactus, 47, 49, 55, 65 
and West Locris, 45 

lasos, 219 n. 

Idomene, 138 

Illyria, 142 

Imbros, Imbrians, 167 f, 175, 181-3, 

i88f 
and Athens, 174, 182, i84f, 188 

imperial colonization (see also 
colonial empires), 30 f, 34 f, 
37-9, 42 f, 6if, 67, 151 f, Gh. 

IX, I66-2IO, 211 

Ionia, lonians, i f, 13 f, 86 n., 109 f, 

182, 216, 222 n. 
and Athens, 2, 11, 63, 183, 213, 

217 
Ionian Revolt, 105, 175 n., 216 



primacy, supremacy), 141, 
202 f, 2i4f 
Hegesistratus, 32, 192, 194, 197 n. 



isopolity (see also citizenship), 64, 

75 f, 96, 107-9, 11 5~ 1 7 
Issa, 43 



Hellenistic period, 2, 12, 99, 108, Istria, 99 n., 100 n., 108 f 



161 

Hellespont, 32 f, 109 n., 192 
Hephaestia, i77f 
Hera, 158-60, 162, 238, 243 f 
Heraclea in Trachis, 34 f, 38 f, 192, 

206-9 

Heracles, 75 
Heraeum, 238, 243 
Herippidas, 207 
Hermes, 162 n. 
Herodicus, 66, 104 
Herodotus, 5 n., n, 103-5 
Hesiod, 91, no 
Hestia, 25 
Hestiaea, 169 n., 170-4, 181-3, 189, 

191 
Himera, 104 f 



Hippias (tyrant of Athens), 32, 34, Lampon, 36 f 



lutos, 159, 238 
Juktas, Mt., 1 60 

King's Peace, 185 

kinship, 95, 100, 112, 150, 183, 206, 

217 

Kleulidai, 15 n. 
kosmoi, 239, 241 
Kyllyrioi, 92 
KytherodikeS) 96 n. 
Kytheros, 173 

Labotas, 207 
Laconia, 95 f 
Laestrygonian Plain, 221 



192 f 

Hippobotai, 169 
Hippocles, 1 6 
Hippocrates (of Gela), 93, 123 f, Laos (in Crete), 238 



Lampsacus, 32 n. 

land allotment, division, (see also 
), 44, 59, 61 f, 65, 220 



143 f 
Hipponium, 86, 94 f, 214 



Lato, 241 

Laus (Italy), 91 f, 114 



INDEX 



255 



law, legal arrangements, 59 f, 67, 

90 f, 100-2, 1 06 
League of Corinth, 80 n. 
leagues, 216 

Lelantine War, 26 n., 73, 222 
Lemnos, 32, 175, 193 

and Athens, I76f, 179, 182, 184 f, 

188 f, 196 

cleruchy and/or apoikia, 174-188 
Leon, 38 f 

Leontini, 36, 46 n., 123 f, 221 f 
Lesbos, 170, 179, 181 
Leucas, 30 f, 119, 132, 141, 144 
coins, 121 f, 125, 149 
andCorcyra, 129 f, 134, 147* J 49 
and Corinth, 118, 129 f, 132-6, 

140, 144, 147 
Leucimme, 147 
Leucoporus, 238 
Libya, 225 f 
Lilybaeum, 20 
Lindus, Lindian, 161 f 
Lindioi (Gela), 20 
Lissus, 209 

Locris, Locrians (see also Epizephy- 
rian Locri, Hypocnemidian 
Locris, Opus, West Locris), 40, 
42, 47-9, 55 n., 56, 58 f, 65, 
non., 115, 214, 227 f 
Lucanians, 199 n. 
Lydia, Lydians, 32 n., 105 
Lykotadas, 239 
Lysander, 185, 187 
Lysimachus, 80 n. 

Machaneus, 159, 238, 244 

Madytians, 197 n. 

magistrates, in colonies from mother 

cities, see governors 
Mantinea, 16, 104, 212 
Maroneia, 81, 89 
Massalia, 1 1 1 

Medes (see also Persians), 47 
mediation, by mother cities, 78, 143, 

155, i57-9> 2l6 
Medma, 86, 94 f, 214 
Megara (Nisaea), 10, 14 f, 66, 74, 

104, 112, 164, 222 
and Corinth, 118 n., 222, Appen- 
dix IV, 233 f 
Hyblaea, 112, 211, 221 n. 
Megasthenes, 16 
Melantas, 239 



Melos, 2, n, 172, 181, 213 f 

cleruchy or apoikia? 173 f, 184, 191 
Messene, Messenians (see also Zan- 

cle), 17-19,41, 104,233 
Methana, 128 
metics, 99, 205 
Micythus, 104 

Miletus, Milesian, 12 f, 74, Ch. VI > 
98-117, 152, 161 

and Cius, 103 

colonization, 109 f 

and Cyzicus, 107-9, 117 

and Istria, 108 f 

and Olbia, 9, 99-109, 161, 164, 

246 n. 

Miltiades, the Elder, 7, 30 n., 32 f,, 
194, 197 n. 

the Younger, 32, 76, 176, 194-7 
Minos, 21 n. 
mixed colonies, 15-22, 210 

of Corinth and Corcyra, 17, 31^ 

. I2 9~35> H 1 * Z 47> H9 
disunity, 16, 206-8, 222 
Molycrium, iigf, 122, 137, 152 
Mycenean colonization, i 
Mycenean pottery, I, 218 
Mylae, 94 

Myrina, 167, 177-9, J 86, 196 
Mysacheis, 57 f, 227 
Mytilene, 38, 89 f, 123, 191 
Mytilenean Revolt, 89, 170 

natives, relations with, 75 n., 94 n.,. 

io6f 

Naucratis, 5 f, 1 04 
Naupactus, 41 f, 49, 51, 60, nof y 

206, 226-8 

and Athens, 41, 137 n. 
circumstances of colonization, 

41 f, 61, 66 f 

foundation decree, 40, 42, 44-62,. 
64 f, 67 f, loif, 117, 190, 214, 
224, 226-8, Appendix III, 
230-2 

and Opus, 45-8, 53 f, 59, 65 
Nausithous, 29 

naval power, navies, 146, 152, 191 
Naxos, 169 

Naxos (Sicily), 26, 221 
Neapolis (Naples), 36, 115 
Neapolis (colony of Thasos), 78, 82, 

87 f 
and Thasos, 77-9, 84-9, 158, 214 



256 



INDEX 



Nicias, 9 

Nicomachus, 186 

nomima, i^f, 21, 125 

North- American colonies, xvii, 75 n. 

Notion, 38 n. 

numbers, of settlers, 9, 38 n., 43, 



oath, oaths, 27 f 

of loyalty, 45-7, 49, 53 f, 67, 214, 

230 f 

Oetaeans, 213 

offerings, to the gods of mother 

cities (see also religious rela- 

tions), 62 f, 67, 108, 158-60, 

162-4, 190, 211, 213, 243 f 

officers, officials, in colonies from 

mother cities, see governors 
oikist, oikists, 7 n., 26 f, Ch. Ill, 29- 
39, 68, 1 66, 212 

of Acragas, 21 

of Ambracia, 30 

of Amphipolis, 34 f, 37 f, 204 

of Anactorium, 30 

of Apollonia in Illyria, 1 30 

of Athenian colony in Adriatic, 40 

of Brea, 34 f, 61, 67, 228 f 

of Gamarina, 93 f 

of the Chersonese, 194 

of a cleruchy, 185 

of Gorcyra, 30, 218, 220, 223 

of Gyrene, 29, 44, 61, 225 

of Epidamnus, 25, 211 

of Gela, 19, 21 f, 29 n. 

of Heraclea in Trachis, 35, 38 f 

of Leucas, 30 

of Notion, 38 n. 

of Potidaea, 30 

of Rhegium, 17, 21 n. 

of Selinus, 27, 211 

of Sigeum, 33 

of Syracuse, 7 n., 30, 218, 220, 
223 

of Thasos, 71 

of Thera, 220 

of Thurii, 26, 34-7, 198 

of Zancle, 93 n. 
Olbia, 9, 99-109, 117, 161, 164, 

246 n. 

Olpae, 137 n,, 138 f 
Olus, 241, 243 n. 
Olympia, 95, 104, 112 f, 175, 195 
Olynthus, 34 n. 



Omphace, 20 

Opus, Opuntian (see also Hypoc- 
nemidian Locrians), 44, 49, 60, 
227 f, 230 f 

and Epizephyrian Locri, 1 1 6 
mother city of the Locrians, 47-9 
and Naupactus, 45-8, 53 f, 59, 65 
Oreos (see Hestiaea), 170 n. 
Orsippus, 233 

Pallene, 32 f 
Panactum, 203 
Pandionis, 173 
Pangaeum, 82 
Panionion, 216 

Paros, Parians, 43 n., 74, 76, 87 
and Athens, 63, 76 
and Thasos, 71-81, 96, 117, 158, 

211 

Pausanias (Spartan), 196 
Peace of Nicias, 37, 128, 203 
pegasus, pegasi, 120-2 
Peisistratus, Peisistratids, 32 f, 194 f 
Pelasgians, 175, 177, 196 
Peloponnese, Peloponnesians, 16, 

78, 84 f, 122, 139 f, 148, 150, 

198 

Peloponnesian League, 132 
Peloponnesian War, (see also Archi- 

damian War), 41, 86, 95 n., 

130, 136-8, 141 n., 142, 146, 

i59n., i79f, 185, 198, 242 
Pentathlus, 20 
peraea, peraeae, 81 f, 87-90 
Percothariae, 57 f, 227 
Periander, 30 f, 43, 90, 129, 132, 

147 f 

Pericles, 136, 178 f 
Perinthus, Perinthian, 74, 79 n., 

125 n., 162 f 
perioikoi, 16, 95, 96 n. 
Persia, Persians, 99, 105 f, 132, 175 f, 

192 

Persian Wars, 175-7* 196, 201 
personal connections, 97, 123, 

124 n., 140, 143 
Phalaris, 21 n. 
Phanodicus, 192 f 
Phantocles, 229 
Pharos, 43 n. 
Philaids, 33 n. 
Philip of Macedon, 80, 204 
Philippi, 88 



INDEX 



257 



Philotas, 94 n. 

Phocaea, m f, 123 

Phocians, 213 

Phoenicians, 27 

Phormio, 133 

Phrikios, Mt., no 

Phrynichus, 205 n. 

Phrynon, 33 

phylae, see tribes 

Piraeus, Piraeans, 50, 200 

Pithecusae, 219, 221 n. 

Plataea, 40, 126 f, 151 n., 174, 202 

Battle of, 135 
Plato, 9 
polis, poleis, i f, 5 

Toleis ohne Territorium*, 119, 

139, 140 n., i66f, 1 88, 197 f, 
201-6, 209 

Polybius, 1 1 5 f 

Pontus (see also Black Sea), 98, 109, 

2i5n. 

Poseidon, 159 f, 238 
Posidonia, 91 f, 114 
Potidaea, 2, 30, 34 n., 141 

and Athens, 136-8, 140, 177, 190 f 

cleruchy, 170 

and Corinth, 10, H9f, 135-7? 

140, 142, 200, 209 
Praxiteles, 104 

primacy, of mother city (see also 
hegemony, supremacy), 165, 

2I 4 
private enterprises, 7 f 

privileges, of colonies and mother 
cities, 54, 99-102, no, 117, 161, 
164^ 246 

property rights, 57 f, 205 

Propontis, 98 

Protagoras, 66 

Protocorinthian pottery, 221 

Pro togeome trie pottery, 2 n., 219 n. 

proxeny, 80 

Pteleon, 128 

Pylades, 30 

Pyllos, 44 n. 

Pylus, 128 

Pythagoras, 104 

Pythagorean Clubs, 158 

Pyxus, 



cities, 46 n., 54, 64-7, 72 f, 102, 

iiof, 115, 140, 145, 147, 151 f, 

188, 212 
religion, 15, 49-51, 61 f, 232 

religious relations, (see also offer- 

ings) 10, 100-3, H 1 * I 53> Ch. 

VIII, 154-65, 213, 216 f 
return, colonists' right of, 62, nof, 

115, 117,248 
at Gyrene, 41, 53 
at Naupactus, 42, 47-9, 51-4, 58, 

67, 232 

Rhaecelus, 195 
Rhegium, 17-19, 21 n., 36, 46 n., 

104 
Rhodes, Rhodian, 10, 19-22, 65, 90, 

164 
Roman period, 2 

Salaminioi, 1 68 n. 
Salamis, 33, 168, 176 

Battle of, 135, 169 
Samnites, 115 

Samos, Samian, 6 n., 14 n., 35 n., 
38 n., 103 f, 125 n., 162 

and Athens, 174, 197 

and Perinthus, 74, 162 
Sardis, 32 n. 
Scapte Hyle, 82 
Scheria, 29 
Scione, 203 
Scyles, 1 06 
Scyros, 174, 184-8 
Scythians, io6f 
Selinus, Selinuntian, 10, 15 n., 27, 

112 f, 211, 221 n. 
Selymbria, 66, 104 
Sermyle, 203 

Sicily, Sicilian, 18, 20, 26, 121, 198 f, 
217 f, 220 

colonization of, 9, 25 n., 221 f 
Sigeum, 32-4, 192-4, ig6f 
silver, 142 
Sinope, 109, 192, 2ign. 

and her colonies, 12, 201-3, 209, 



recruitment, of settlers, 41, 46, 6 1, 67 
refugees, see exiles, fugitives 
reinforcement, of colonies by mother 



Siris, 1 6 

sites, of colonies, 142 n., 219, 221-3 

Smyrna, i n., 2 a. 

Sollium, 119 f, 122, 128, 141 

Sparta, Spartans, 8, 39, 54n. 3 105, 

128, 144, 150, 185, 188, 203, 

207, 242 n., 246 



258 



INDEX 



Sparta (contd.) 

and Athens, 37, 185, 213 f 

and Cythera, 10, 95 f 

and Doris, 213 

and Heraclea in Trachis, 34, 38 f, 
192, 206-9 

and Melos, n, 213 f 

and Taras, 7, 13, 145 f, 162 
Spartolus, 34 n. 
Speusippus, 205 n. 
Spina, 6 
Stagirus, 9 
state enterprises, 7 f 
Stryme, 81, 89, 121 
supremacy, of mother city, (see also 
hegemony, primacy), 10, 137, 
139, 145, 148, 151, 158 
Sybaris, 6, 16, 36 n., 114, 159 

and her colonies, 91 f, 94 n., 152, 

190 

Sybota, 120, 128, 132 f, 148 
sympolity, 75, 79-81, 96, 114.?, 117 
synoecism, 80, 114 
Syracuse, Syracusan, 9 f, 86, 95, 
ii4n., 143 f, 148, 170, 182 

coins, I24f, 148 

colonization, 43, 92-4, 152, 190, 
208 f 

and Gorcyra, 10, 143 f 

and Corinth, 13, n8, 142-9 

and Epizephyrian Locri, 1 1 6 

foundation, 218-23 

oikist, 7n., 30, 218, 220, 223 

Tanagra, 126, 213 
Taras, 7, 16, 26 

and Sparta, 7, 13, 145 f, 162 
Taurophonion?, 237 
Taxes, taxation, 51 f, 100-2, 163^ 

171 f, 189, 200 
at Naupactus, 47 f, 51 f, 68, 190, 

232 

Tegea, 104 
Telesikles, 71 
Thasos, Thasian, 9, 27, Gh. V, 71- 

97. 197 n. 

and Athens, 76, 80 n., 81 f, 89 
coins, 80 n., 88 n. 
and her colonies, 81-90, 96, 117, 

121, 152, 212 
and Egypt, 74 

decree about delation, 83-5, 89, 
90 n., 214 



and Neapolis, 77-9, 84-9, 158, 

214 
and Paros, 71-81, 96, 117, 158, 

211 
revenues from her colonies, 81-3, 

200 

Thebes, 40, 126 f, 202 f 
Themistocles, 86 n., 129 n. 
Thera, Theraeans, 220, 225 f 
and Gyrene, 16, 27-9, 41, 53, 62, 

64, 73, in f, 212 
Theras, 220 

Thermopylae, 47, no n. 
Theron, 21 n. 
Theseus, 204 

Thessaly, Thessalian, 73 n., 80 n. 
Thetes, 61, 181, 229 
Thrace, Thracian, 38, 72, 75 n., 81 
Thraceward Region, 34, 37, 76 n., 

197, 199 f, 229 
Thrasybulus, 205 n. 
Thronium, 131 

Thucydides, 5 n., i04f, 128, 221 n. 
and Amphipolis, 37, 200, 245-8 
on cleruchies and apoikiai, 170-3, 

182-4, l &9 
on Corinthian colonies, 120 f, 

126 n,, 129, 141 

on the relations of colonies and 
mother cities, 2, 9-12, 105, 153, 
i6of, 183, 213 f, 217 
son of Melesias, 36 n. 
Thurii, 16, 26, 36, 169, 173 n. 
and Athens, 35 f, 198 f 
foundation, 35 f, 197 
oikists, 26, 34-7, 198 
tribes, 36, 198 f 
Timaeus, 7, 115-17 
Timoleon, 120, i44f, 148 
Tiribazus, 184 n. 
Torone, 203 
Trachinians, 207, 213 
trade (see also commerce), 4f, 109, 

218-20, 240, 246 
trading posts (see also emporiori), 5 f, 

219 
traditional practices, Ch. II, 25-8, 

215 

Trapezus, 109 n., 201, 209 n. 
tribes, i4f, 36, 177-80, i98f 
tribute, Athenian, 62 f, 82 f, 87, 89, 

137, 178 f, 182 f, 185, i86n., 

193, 200 



INDEX 



259 



of Athenian colonies, 177 f, 201 

at Naupactus, 47 f, 51, 232 

of Sinope's colonies, 190, 200 f, 

205 

tribute lists, 8i ? 125, 177$ 180 
trierarchy, igon. 
Troad, 193 

Tylissus, Argive decree about Ty- 

lissus and Cnossus, 78, 214, 

Appendix V, 235-44 

and Argos, Ch. VIII, 154-65, 212 

and Cnossus, Ch. VIII, 154-65, 

212, 239-44 
status of, 239-44 
tyrants, 30 f, 141, 195, 197 
colonization of, 30 f, 33 f, 118, 

141-3, 147 f, 151, 192, 211 
Tyrsenians (see also Pelasgians), 
17611. 

war, 95, 107 f, 13911., 206, 233 f, 
240, 242 



aid in, 73 f, 97, 132, 135 f, 140 f, Zopyrion, 99 



144 f, 190, 2i3f 
between colonies and mother 

cities, 10, 86 f, 93, 147, 158, 

183, 214 
West Locris, Locrians, 45, 47-9, 

58 n., 226 
West Locrian settlement, 56 f, 59, 

65, in n. 

Xenagoras, 20 n. 
Xenares, 39 
Xenocritus, 36 
Xenophon, 9, 11, 201-3 
Xerxes, 109 n. 

Zancle, Zancleans, 17 f, 21 n., 93 n., 

94, 104, 113 
Zeugitae, 61, 229 
Zeus, 195 

Homarios, 159 

Meilichios, 15 n. 




116084